Connect with us

Features

GOSL in Geneva etc.

Published

on

By Sanja De Silva Jayatilleka

The new Sri Lankan administration continues to fail spectacularly at an alarming rate, both nationally and internationally. Internationally, Resolution HRC/51/L1/Rev1 is the ninth resolution to be adopted on Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council since 2009. The vertical slide at the UNHRC since 2012 which accelerated under the Gotabaya Presidency, reached a new low under the Ranil Presidency with just seven votes in its favour. All of the resolutions on Sri Lanka at the Council since May 2009 have been primarily on post-war reconciliation, devolution of political authority and accountability for alleged human rights violations and transgressions of international humanitarian law by both sides to the conflict.

The latest resolution however, drafted in the aftermath of an unprecedented people’s uprising against the government which saw the dramatic overthrow of the President following the resignation of the entire cabinet including the Prime Minister, introduces for the first time an economic dimension, calling upon the government to address the economic crisis and to investigate and prosecute corruption, in addition to the usual war-related concerns. The uprising popularly referred to as the “Aragalaya” (Struggle), had as its main grievances the corruption of the ruling elite and its mismanagement of the economy, which plunged the country into bankruptcy.

Predictably, the resolution was vehemently rejected by Sri Lanka’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Sabry participating at the 51st session in Geneva on behalf of the government of Sri Lanka. The government having elected its longtime political opponent Ranil Wickremesinghe (who lost his parliamentary seat at the last elections) as President to replace the ousted Gotabaya Rajapaksa, recovered its composure and continues to insist that the economic crisis was a result of the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine, and that its role in the collapse of the economy was marginal.

NATIONAL NARRATIVE

Neither its own citizens nor the international community are buying it. There are daily manifestations of protests, probably indicating that the country is on the cusp of another ‘Aragalaya’. Following close on the heels of the resolution, the Supreme Court has granted leave to proceed on three Fundamental Rights cases holding the former President, former Prime Minister and former Finance Minister (the most politically prominent members of the Rajapaksa family) in addition to their Cabinet and top officials, naming 39 individuals as responsible and accountable for the economic crisis. Together, these developments may lead the IMF and the creditors in negotiations with the government of Sri Lanka on debt restructuring, and other stakeholders, to insist on early elections to obtain a fresh mandate from the people.

The disproportionately repressive methods being sought to be implemented by the security bureaucracy as pre-emptive measures against a repetition of the uprising are only proving to be propellants of their worst fears. The aggressive conduct of the Police this week at a peaceful vigil planned by a few hundred protesters at Galle Face, shocked the nation, especially when they rushed at parents carrying children in an attempt to arrest them. The traumatized children were pulled away from the parents by the Police while people screamed at them in horror.

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has since called the Police officers in as part of their investigation in to this new and unsanctioned conduct, except it seems by President Wickremesinghe, who in response to this incident, bizarrely suggested new legislation to prevent children from being taken to protests and spoke not a word on unprovoked, unwarranted Police brutality!

The government’s attempt to declare several areas in and around the city as High Security Zones was challenged in the courts and was subsequently withdrawn by President Wickremesinghe. The arrests and continued detention of high-profile protesters under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which gets a mention in the Geneva resolution, has increased public suspicion and the unpopularity of the government.

The Foreign Minister was grossly in error in his criticism that the Council had neither the mandate nor the expertise in economic matters. In the founding document of the UNHRC, Resolution 60/251 of the General Assembly specifically clarifies that all human rights, including civil and political rights are indivisible and should be regarded with the same attention. The Council has long appointed international experts known as Special Procedures, who are experienced in the relevant fields to report to the Council on diverse matters. These Special Rapporteurs conduct field visits, consultations with stakeholders, collect evidence and present their reports both to the Council in Geneva and to the General Assembly in New York. As of 2021, there are 45 thematic Special Procedures of the Council ranging from experts on Climate Change to Extreme Poverty.

Significantly for Sri Lanka, there is also a Special Procedure called “the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights”.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the membership of 47 is assured of equitable geographic representation, with each region proportionately representing its share of humanity and each member holding an equal vote, with no veto held by any member. It’s composition attempts to reflect world opinion fairly.

GENEVA STORY

The story of the resolutions and their voting records in Geneva reflect Sri Lanka’s relationship with the world community and its conduct of international relations. The results of the votes at the UNHRC stand as independent witness to Sri Lanka’s capacity for negotiating its national interest in the world system.

The first resolution was adopted at a Special Session of the Council on May 27. 2009, just over a week after the Sri Lankan state prevailed over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, bloodily ending a three decades old war. It is remarkable that Sri Lanka managed to get 29 votes in its favour, by far the greatest number it has ever managed (over 60% of the membership), in the immediate aftermath of the war (2009), when the lowest number was gained 13 years after the war ended and in peacetime (2022). Sri Lanka’s votes at the Council have declined steadily since 2009, never managing to get more than 15 (2012) and going down to just seven votes in 2022.

The numbers are important because they are clearly reflective of an important underlying factor of Sri Lanka’s conduct of international affairs. The highest votes were achieved when Sri Lanka regarded the UN Human Rights Council as well as the United Nations system as deserving of full engagement and unstinting support, becoming an active participant in shaping the role that the Council would play in the UN system. Scholarly studies have described this variety of Sri Lankan diplomacy as “norm entrepreneurship”, i.e., influencing the “norms” by which the Council operates, challenging the old and helping shape the new.

This was a critical contribution at a time when the old way had discredited the UN Human Rights Commission as biased, causing it to be closed down by the member states and replaced by the new UN Human Rights Council in 2006. At the time, Sri Lankan diplomacy did not regard the promotion and protection of human rights as contrary to its national interest. Despite propaganda conducted at the time locally by those who contrived to discredited Sri Lanka’s success in 2009, its diplomacy engaged with every country, every human rights organization, every NGO including those representing the views of the LTTE, in open discussions and debate at events held on the sidelines of the Council, while standing confidently for the enlightened national interest, using persuasion to convince and building firm coalitions of states to prevail in a vote. This approach saw most of Asia, Latin America, and Africa vote with Sri Lanka with only the collective vote of the EU (12) voting against. In retrospect, this approach has proven to be rare, and its achievement unique.

The vertical drop in numbers came when the Council and at times the UN system as a whole were regarded by Colombo with hostility, and its diplomacy became a reflection of the prevailing administration’s self-image, at times overconfident and at others seeing itself as a victim of a global conspiracy either of the member states or the Tamil Diaspora. Colombo’s discourse became hostile as it failed to convince the Council of its position, having also failed to make significant progress on the wartime and postwar promises made by its leadership and restated at the Council.

The UN Human Rights Council is not an alien or abstract idea imposed on countries. It is composed of UN member states and as such its membership is open to persuasion by a state’s conduct and discourse. It is true that the hegemonic powers have a distinct advantage in many matters as they largely control the global media and fund many UN initiatives through voluntary contributions. It is however as an equal member of the United Nations that Sri Lanka can contribute to minimizing those advantages enjoyed by a few. One such proven achievement was the initiative of the Global South for the ‘equitable geographic distribution’ of the Council’s membership. Even though regularly used, the “powerful countries” argument made by Sri Lanka to explain its poor performance in Geneva is hardly convincing when it overcame those obstacles in 2009 by creative diplomacy at the worst of times. However, in the absence of respect for human rights by the state itself, diplomacy however skilled, can only play a limited, increasingly marginal role.

[Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka is author of Mission Impossible-Geneva, Vijitha Yapa, Colombo, 2017]



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Features

Egg white scene …

Published

on

Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.

Thought of starting this week with egg white.

Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?

OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.

Egg White, Lemon, Honey:

Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.

Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.

Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.

Egg White, Avocado:

In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.

Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.

Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:

In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.

Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.

Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:

To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.

Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.

Continue Reading

Features

Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight

Published

on

Ne-Yo: His management should clarify the last-minute cancellation

Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!

At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.

What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.

Shah Rukh Khan: Disappointed his fans in Sri Lanka

According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.

Nick Carter: His concert, too, was cancelled due to “Unforeseen circumstances

However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.

Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.

Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.

Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!

In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”

Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”

The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!

Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.

However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.

We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”

Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.

“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending