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)
|