22 January 2008
Sri Lanka’s militarist government reacted furiously last Tuesday to warnings by UN Human Rights Chief, Louise Arbour, that human rights abuses in Sri Lanka left perpetrators and their commanders at risk of international war crimes charges.
Rejecting Ms. Arbour’s comments as “pathetically unenforceable threats,” Sri Lanka’s embassy to the UN said the Colombo government “will not be deterred by thinly veiled threats attempting to undermine the morale of its military, deter its military campaigns and save separatist terrorism from elimination.” It also challenged the transparency of funding for Ms. Arbour’s office and the extent to which it represented the “world’s peoples.”
Earlier Tuesday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Arbour, noting that Sri Lanka’s abrogation of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement comes into effect Wednesday [January 16], reminded the Sri Lankan government (GoSL) and the Liberation Tigers of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law towards civilians.
A UN statement noted that international law “obliges all parties to protect civilians without discrimination and includes prohibitions against the arbitrary deprivation of life, arbitrary detention, forced displacement, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also forbids the recruitment and deployment of children as soldiers.”
Ms. Arbour warned that “violations of these rules by any party could entail individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law, including by those in positions of command.”
In a prompt response to her comments, the Sri Lankan mission to the UN in Geneva, which is headed by Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleke, slammed Ms. Arbour’s comments and rejected her warnings.
“Sri Lanka was not in violation of international criminal law in the years of armed conflict before the signing of the CFA and after, is not now, and will not be in the future,” the GoSL statement said.
“Sri Lanka is firmly committed to a political solution to the legitimate grievances of the Tamil people, based on the devolution of power. It will not be deterred by thinly veiled (if pathetically unenforceable) threats, attempting to undermine the morale of its military, deter its military campaigns and save separatist terrorism from elimination.”
“Reading her statement, Sri Lanka is curious to know whether similar warnings (as distinct from statements of concern or condemnation) have been issued by the High Commissioner to other States in their conduct of wars much more serious both in scale and impact on International Humanitarian Law than the Sri Lankan situation.”
“In the light of this obvious bias, Sri Lanka feels strongly that the OHCHR should be more transparent in its funding and decision-making and more representative of the world's peoples and regions in its composition, all of which have been repeatedly called for by the member States of the UN Human Rights Council.”
In statement, Ms. Arbour had warned of the impact on Sri Lankans as a result of the conflict worsening.
"An intensification of hostilities will likely have a devastating effect on the human rights of many Sri Lankans from all communities," the High Commissioner said in the statement.
“The High Commissioner visited Sri Lanka in October 2007. In her dialogue with the Government she has stressed the critical need for independent, public reporting on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the readiness of her Office to assist in this regard,” the statement noted.
Following the Sri Lankan reaction, UN Watch, an NGO, expressed concern.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, said it was legitimate to debate statements by the world body but was “disappointed that a vice-president of the Human Rights Council would negate a core duty of the UN’s highest human rights official.”
“We regret the use of ill-advised language and the disputing of the UN’s jurisdiction to monitor the events in Sri Lanka,” said Neuer.
Neuer said Sri Lanka’s latest statement against High Commissioner Arbour’s office “only underscores the dangerous attempts by repressive regimes to eliminate all forms of independent human rights scrutiny.”
The office of Ambassador Jayatilleka had repeated a charge often levelled by China and other countries who oppose scrutiny of their records, saying the “OHCHR should be more transparent in its funding and decision-making” and “more representative of the world's peoples and regions in its composition.”
China, Iran, Sudan and other members of the “Like Minded Group” successfully introduced a Human Rights Council resolution (HRC 4/6) in March 2007 that imposed geographic requirements, instead of merit, as the basis for staff hiring by Ms. Arbour’s office, and sought to curb her independence.
We need your support
Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. Tamil journalists are particularly at threat, with at least 41 media workers known to have been killed by the Sri Lankan state or its paramilitaries during and after the armed conflict.
Despite the risks, our team on the ground remain committed to providing detailed and accurate reporting of developments in the Tamil homeland, across the island and around the world, as well as providing expert analysis and insight from the Tamil point of view
We need your support in keeping our journalism going. Support our work today.
For more ways to donate visit https://donate.tamilguardian.com.
