ONE: Tamara Kunanayakam, 20 May 2020, responding to the statement made by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa yesterday https://www.newsfirst.lk/2020/05/19/wont-hesitate-to-withdraw-sri-lanka-from-bodies-which-target-soldiers-president-rajapaksa/
The President is most likely referring here to the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The statement indicates he is either wrongly advised about the UN or [is pursuing] plain politics, which could go against Sri Lanka at a time it desperately needs international support precisely to protect its war heroes. The statement has been widely picked up by Western media agencies, which have a global influence.
Why is there a problem with the statement?
SL is not a Member of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC); it is only an Observer State, so the question of ‘pulling out’ does not arise. Besides, HRC is an integral part of the United Nations, a subsidiary body of the UN under the General Assembly, which elects HRC members from among UN member States. The only way to completely withdraw from HRC is to leave the United Nations.
As for ‘pulling out’ of the OHCRC, the only way to do so would also be by leaving the UN altogether, OHCHR being a body of the United Nations, not a Specialised Agency.
It is preposterous that SL should even consider quitting the only global multilateral organisation that exists today capable of defending multilaterism, in accordance with the UN Charter, and hence the interests of less powerful states such as ours. The world order established under the UN Charter, whatever its weaknesses — and there are many — is the only order capable of defending the sovereignty of less powerful states and former colonies such as ours, against external interference, intervention, aggression, and wars.
The system must be strengthened, not weakened, in the light of the increasing resort to unilateral coercive measures by the US (especially) to exert pressure on sovereign states to compel a change on policy through sanctions or threats of sanctions, embargoes, blockades, conditionalities, intimidation, etc ..
Withdrawing from the United Nations will only strengthen the US supremacist unilateralist vision of the worl ; undermine multi-lateralism which the Non Aligned Movement has fought for and largely contributed to developing in the interest of former colonies; isolate Sri Lanka; weaken its ability to negotiate from a position of strength; deprive it of the means to resolve problems with global dimensions (such as COVID 19, climate change, trade, finance…); and, ultimately, erode its independence, sovereignty and possibly its territorial integrity.
It is incongruous that the President should make such a statement at an event to pay tribute to war heroes who sacrificed their lives in the war against LTTE terror and separatism that was fought precisely on the basis of defending those very same principles unilateralism seeks to undermine.
And how will such a statement be interpreted by our potential allies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose very existence and survival as independent and sovereign nations depends on respect for the purposes and principles incorporated in the UN Charter, and at a time that US President Donald Trump uses the exact same threat to quit WHO in the midst of a global pandemic?
Dear Tamara, …………..My response to your ‘initial comments’ is that there is no basis for interpreting the statements by GR copied below as a threat to withdraw from the UNHCR or from the UN. Are we really surprised that the media (including some of ours that make no secret about their preference to oust the Rajapaksas) are jubilant over what they publicize as a foreign policy failure? You have correctly pointed out that SL is not a member of the Human Rights Commission. What the president could do is, of course, not send a delegation to the ‘Periodic Review’ which has persistently served as a forum for those who believe that the President of SL, his government, and the security forces are guilty of committing was crimes, regardless of the persuasive strength with which our case has been presented over the years. It has also disregarded the duplicity inherent in the fact that some of our most virulent attackers are from (or officially represent), nations that have committed war crimes all along, since the UN was established.
Extracts from GR’s speech
- Therefore, I will not allow any room for attempts to discredit and destroy the dignity of our war heroes who made countless sacrifices to bring peace to entire Sri Lanka. I assure you that under my administration, we will take every measure always to protect the dignity of our heroic forces.
- It is a national responsibility to ensure their rights.
- In a situation where even leaders of powerful countries have emphatically stated that they would not allow any action against their war heroes, in a small country like ours where our war heroes have sacrificed so much, I will not allow anyone to exert undue pressure on them or harass them. If any international body or organization continuously target our country and our war heroes, using baseless allegations, I will also not hesitate to withdraw Sri Lanka from such bodies or organizations.
Best regards, Peiris
3 responses to “Friendly Fire: Gotabaya’s Ranaviru Address under Amiable Criticism”
I agree with Mr Gerald Peiris & thank him was his statement. It is so easy to misinterpret words of the President’s statement & ridicule him or make him look foolish. Something parts of our media as well as overseas media are pretty good at. Lets not forget he is NOT a Gamarala whose only worthy knowledge is about ploughing his paddy fields !!!
Thanks. Nothing withheld!
Thanks Mike. Nothing witheld!