Colombo rejects U.S.-backed resolution, says it is "replete with misrepresentations" on the current situation; 25 countries vote in favour, while 13 nations including Pakistan vote against
India refrained from moving oral amendments to the resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) after it became clear that the main sponsors, especially the U.S., were in no mood to make changes owing to fears that some African countries might abstain or cross over and oppose the resolution, said official sources in the Ministry of External Affairs. While 25 countries, including India, voted in favour, 13 countries, including Pakistan, voted against and eight abstained.
When India’s Permanent Representative to UN Dileep Sinha was summoned here, Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai asked him to move seven amendments. On reaching Geneva, Mr. Sinha contacted his American counterpart and informed him about India’s desire. The principal amendment would have brought the progress made by Sri Lanka in implementing the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) under the gaze of the international community.
The U.S., after consulting other co-sponsors of the resolution, came back to India late on Wednesday and said the incorporation of Indian amendments could lead to a fracture in the alliance favouring the resolution. These included some African countries who, as it is, were uneasy allies. From Asia, while Japan was mollified by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s recent visit and voted against the resolution, South Korea, with a newly elected government, was a cat on the wall (it finally voted with India and the United States).
The U.S. Permanent Representative told Mr. Sinha that his country wanted to increase the margin as compared to last time rather than see a depletion in the strength of those questioning Sri Lanka’s human rights record during the closing phases of the conflict between its security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
Therefore, said official sources here, India decided not to press for amendments and fell in line with the resolution as hammered together by the U.S. and other co-sponsors. “We would have been seen as disruptive rather than constructive. It just didn’t work out,” said official sources.
Keywords: United Nations Human Rights Council, UNHRC resolution, U.S.-sponsored resolution, human rights violation, Sri Lanka human rights
Once one reads beyond all the 'fluff', this resolution is pretty much the same as last year. The point is that no country wants to 'cross a certain line' which would set a bad precedent of compromising sovereignty of a country. They all know that there is no country out there who does not have 'skeletons in their closet', and hence it could easily come back & bite them too.India of all countries knows that SL did what was required to end the conflict.
My personal view is that India has made a huge strategic & diplomatic blunder by allowing the U.S. to step into south asian affairs. India should have nipped the U.S. resolution in the bud back in 2012. On observing the effects of this resolution, I feel that India has come out of it worse off than Sri Lanka. There are no agitations of any kind in Sri Lanka & politically the Sri Lankan govt. is as strong as ever with the over-whelming majority with the govt. On the otherhand, Tamil Nadu is 'Red hot' & the UPA govt. is 18 members lighter
Japan has abstained,not voted against the resolution, The final tally
for the resolution is 26 not 25.
What mattered really was for India to register at the International forum its conclusion that Srilankan leadership and military wantonly involved in GENOCIDE.
Whether or not the resolution was passed is immaterial, considering that the UN is NOT a forum for action. This has been proved time and again.
It would have been wise to come out in the open and explicitly supported a resolution against GENOCIDE and WAR CRIMES rather than being "diplomatic", whatever that means.
It is shocking Japan the land of morning calm voted against the resolution. Are they making decision based on the merit of the case or acting based on benfit? Dont they see the light of the Tamisl there. This is bad karma.
This resolution and India's efforts are inadequate to make Srilanka comply with earlier commitments.Srilankan war crimes were well known but still the war criminal remains unpunished..I think all because of International political equations srilankan tamil cause is being diluted.
kottai rajan.k
This seems to be the beginning of another one of West's regime-change project. As a European has said, peace is war through other means. Sri Lanka is the most educated, richest and democratic country in South Asia and that is not to the West's liking.
People should look this resolution as positive note. This resolution may not bring any amjor impact on Tamils in Srilanka, but definitely this is an initiative to safeguard the human rights of the world. 25 nations stood for the human rights of Tamil in Srilanka and it is evident that these nations are well civilized society and democratic
It is unfortunate that India changed its foreign policy principal
under regional politics.This pressure might lead India to
nowhere,even the Tamilnadu people will also not able to provide the
justice to Tamil community there.Due to this resolution India is
even lost its diplomatic pressure over the Srilanka. If regional
politics keep pressuring foreign policy then the India might lose
its diplomatic ties from all the neighbors as happened what
happened in Bangladesh and now srilanka.
UNHRC should not only look into the issues/ resolutions sponsored by US
but also those issues that can implicate US in Vietnam, Persian Gulf
wars etc. If a nation is suffering from extremism/terrorism either from
within or from other nations, United Nations Security Council should
play an effective role and safeguard the interests of such nations. In
absence of UNSC's role, UNHRC if wants to find fault with nations that
have to deal with their internal aspects, it doesn't seem fair.
Well, the Government has done what DMK chief wanted --- voted for the resolution and moved for amendments. Will DMK now join UPA again ?
This is a useless resolution. It is not going to help the Tamils in any
way. The investigation should be done by world nations and not by Sri
Lanka. The resolution will further delay the process of getting true
Justice. The resolution is no way supporting the formation of Tamil
Eelam.
Please Email the Editor