Home arrow Archives arrow Round the World arrow Round The World 2013 arrow UNHRC Sri Lanka Resolution: INDIA’S DIPLOMATIC DILEMMA, By Shreya Upadhyay, 5 March, 2013
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNHRC Sri Lanka Resolution: INDIA’S DIPLOMATIC DILEMMA, By Shreya Upadhyay, 5 March, 2013 Print E-mail

Round The World

New Delhi, 5 March 2013

UNHRC Sri Lanka Resolution

INDIA’S DIPLOMATIC DILEMMA

By Shreya Upadhyay

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

 

It is a déjà vu moment for India. A year after New Delhi dilly-dallied and waited till the last minute before backing the US sponsored UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution against Colombo, the country is at the cross roads.

It is hoping that the 2013 draft, coming up for discussion in the UNHRC later this month, would be adopted as a consensus document. This would cross out voting and save India from showing its cards. Interestingly, New Delhi last year was unsure, supporting the resolution only at the eleventh hour but toned it down to make it “non intrusive”. To its relief, Colombo does not seem to be upbeat about the vote.

Unlike 2012 March, when nationalist tendencies were high and the air filled with anti-West, anti-resolution rallies, no such thing is happening today. Also, Sri Lanka’s seemingly casual attitude is a result of its preparations to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) summit in November. As many countries are planning to boycott this, Colombo is following a non-confrontationist approach with Western Governments. 

Moreover, President Rajapaksa understands that voting on the resolution might not result in a different outcome. Recall, last year’s feverish lobbying failed to bring any positives for Colombo with 24 countries voting for the motion, 15 against and 8 abstaining. It does not even have committed votes like China and Russia, which are not voting members this time. On the other hand, if Sri Lanka decides to let the resolution be adopted without a vote, it could engage with member States on its language.   

Colombo’s calmness also stems from the fact there is no indication from the US that new action is being contemplated as the resolution is only ‘procedural’ and not ‘substantive’. In spirit and intent, it is going to be a near repeat of the last resolution which wanted Sri Lanka to implement its own recommendations on the 2009 war excesses and punish the guilty.

Pertinently, even the title "Promoting Accountability and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka" remains the same. The draft doing the rounds does not propose scaling up the degree of pressure on Colombo nor contemplates any collective action against it. It only exhorts President Rajapaksa to set his house in order. Thus, the resolution might only amount to stock-taking and checking Sri Lanka’s achievements over commitments.

Markedly, the draft notes with concern continuing reports of human rights violations, judicial independence and rule of law. It also underscores the Government’s failure to fulfill public commitments, including on devolution of political authority to Provinces as mentioned in the Constitution. The resolution also states that the Sri Lanka’s National Action Plan does not adequately address all the findings and constructive recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report.

This includes the need to investigate widespread allegations of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarizing northern Sri Lanka, implementing impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluating detention policies, strengthening formerly independent civil institutions, promoting and protecting the right of freedom of expression for all.  In what was termed non-Constitutional, the Government also went ahead with the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Dr. Shirani A. Banadaranayke for alleged improper conduct and influencing the justice process. 

In addition, human rights organisations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) have documented reports of alleged rape and torture of Sri Lankan Tamil detainees. The documentary ‘No Fire Zone’ screened at the current session of UNHRC focuses on alleged atrocities and illegal killings during the final weeks of the 2009 conflict and shows disturbing visuals of Prabhakaran's son Balachandran's last hours. This has led to international condemnation for Rajapaksa’s Government.  

Besides, Tamil political sentiments in India are soaring high. Opposition Parties particularly AIADMK and CPI have been highly critical of New Delhi for ignoring war crimes and human rights violations in Sri Lanka. President Rajapaksa’s visits to Bodh Gaya and Tirupati last month were marked with protests organized by many Tamil Parties including the MDMK, CPI, DMDK, Dalit Panthers of India (DPI), etc.

In fact, the Central Government’s response so far is misleading, but probably for good.  It is still undecided whether there will be a vote on the resolution. Therefore, it is not advisable for New Delhi to make its stand public. The Prime Minister’s Office recently confirmed its support to the resolution if it came up for vote notwithstanding its categorical assertion that Sri Lanka is not “enemy country”.

Further, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid urged Washington and Colombo to directly engage on the draft resolution and aim for a mutually acceptable outcome, adding that India would take a call on the vote depending on the talk’s outcome. Khurshid also hinted that accountability issues should be treated as a nation’s sovereign responsibility and not imposed from outside. Thus, any “intrusive” recommendations in the draft could be unacceptable for policy-makers back home.

Incidentally, New Delhi has also increased its annual grant to the island nation in the Union Budget. The allocation for 2013-2014 has gone up to Rs 500-crore from Rs 290-crore last year and Rs 181.94 crore in 2011-2012. This allowance is towards rehabilitation of internally displaced Tamils. However, Tamil Parties have reprimanded the UPA Government and accused it of diverting aid for other purposes.

Clearly, New Delhi is torn between internal political wrangling and balancing foreign policy goals. As general elections are less than a year away the Congress-led coalition is dependent on Tamil Nadu’s 16 MPs to continue in office. Thus, keeping these leaders happy is an inevitable part of coalition politics. At the international level, if it comes to voting India cannot vote against the motion which it supported last time. 

Complicating matters, India’s relationship with Sri Lanka also involves China and Pakistan. Till date Beijing has been successfully flirting with Colombo thereby making considerable strategic gains and bagging the Hambantota port and international airport projects, along-with another highway project and investments in other sectors such as agriculture.

Consequently, it is important for India to walk with caution the thin line between domestic politics and strategic priorities. Needless to say, a ‘no vote’ prayer might work for it briefly but even if it given a pass; New Delhi will have to take a stand on the CHOGM Summit. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) is set to meet in London next month where several Governments might want to edge out Sri Lanka from holding the Summit.  New Delhi should be ready with a response.  ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT