 Welcome to the 14th capsule, International Relations Capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today, our topic is Sri Lanka at the HRC, the UN Human Rights Council. Last week, the Human Rights Council in Geneva met online and adopted the resolution on Sri Lanka. This has been an ongoing process for several years after the civil war in Sri Lanka. And there has been a lot of discussion as to how to deal with the post-war situation in Sri Lanka. There was a great demand for an international investigation into war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Army and also the human rights violations of the Tamil Tigers. This has been going on for a long time but after several years now, Sri Lanka is very keen to settle this issue. And they have been campaigning and lobbying with the members of the Human Rights Council to close this chapter and leave matters to the Sri Lankan government itself. But the latest resolution which has been adopted is a mixture of the two. They have not closed the chapter relating to international investigation but it has been diluted to a certain extent. But the emphasis is on reconciliation and accountability. Reconciliation is in favour of Sri Lanka while when they speak of accountability they would like the international community to realise that accountability is not only of the government but also of the Tamil community. But this resolution I have seen some commentaries suggesting that this was a big blow to Sri Lanka because the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been authorised to do certain things in the way of establishing accountability of the parties concerned. But in my view, this is really giving Sri Lanka more time for reconciliation. The pressure on Sri Lanka to accept an international investigation is slowly being given up. And though a formal decision has been taken to authorise the UN High Commissioner refugees to do certain things I think Sri Lanka is being let off the hook. But Sri Lanka has to take this situation seriously and make some efforts to at least improve the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. So what is of concern today is not really the war crimes etc which are several years old. And they will of course be forgotten sooner or later. But to make sure that the remaining Tamils are resettled and their problems are resolved. And also that some of their political rights should be restored. So is Sri Lanka is willing to do that? This particular decision by the Human Rights Council may be of help to them. And so this has to be seen in the context of how United Nations handles human rights situations. So let us look at this resolution. It has several paragraphs, several concepts, several ideas. But the major elements in this resolution are these. The first and foremost importance of accountability of all parties including the Tigers. So it's a balanced statement. Then strengthen the domestic efforts of accountability within the country. That is responsibility given to the state itself. Because after all these are matters relating to sovereignty and integrity of the country. So they have mentioned that the main responsibility to resolve these issues is of the Sri Lankan government itself. Thirdly, this is the operational part or operative paragraph of the resolution. Which strengthens the capacity of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. To collect, consolidate, analyze and preserve information and evidence. And to develop a possible strategies for future accountability processes. So this is a very complex language. But what does it mean? It is not asking an external authority to investigate. That has been the demand of the Western powers. United Kingdom has been leading the battle on this. But United Kingdom has not simply put this forward as a Great Britain's position. But after a lot of consultations with many countries including India, Russia, China, etc. who have been supportive of Sri Lankan government. Then they take note of the early warning sign of a deteriorating situation of human rights in Sri Lanka. This is crucial because their concern is that in the last two years, long after the war, still the Tamil community in Sri Lanka are in an unsettled affair. Some of them are still being harassed and a lot of crimes are being committed against them. Their political rights are not being exercised. So one element is that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will collate information. It is not an investigation. We know the recent example of what happened at the WHO. The country started demanding an investigation into China's activities with regard to pandemic. But what happened finally, the investigation was diluted into some kind of a study or a collection of material. And even that we know, even though the team went there many money months later, nothing much has come out of that report. So when a powerful country or a reasonable country persists and makes some promises to make up for what has been done in the past, then the UN slowly eases the pressure on that country. That's what happens. So a similar situation is emerging in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is of course not as powerful as China, but Sri Lanka has a very robust foreign policy and diplomacy. I have seen Sri Lankan diplomats, though it's a small country, they exert tremendous amount of influence in international affairs. First as one of the leaders of the non-aligned world, then an island state, which is right in the middle of Indian Ocean, which provides capacity for maritime arrangements, then their closeness to the great powers. They are friendly with the South Asian countries. So they have several plus points in dealing with this issue. So what we are seeing is a gradual easing of the pressure on Sri Lanka to face an international investigation. So what has been said is that the Human Rights Commissioner for Human Rights should gather information and build up material to see what process should be followed. And then they have given them something like three, four years to do that. This was the 46th session, an oral report has to be given in the 48th session, a return report to be given on the 49th session, and then a conciliation or action in the 51st session. So this gives them something like four years to deal with it. Hence, the Human Rights Council has given the Sri Lankans an opportunity to first improve the human rights situation regarding the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Number one, which is a very reasonable request. And the Sri Lanka itself should be interested in that. And in answer to the demand for an international investigation, they have kept the concerned officers, not a new commission. It is UN Rights Commissioner for Human Rights. She will collect information in a sense that some kind of international interest will be kept alive. So then they have also said that internal processes should continue. And if necessary, the Human Rights Council will give Sri Lanka advice on these matters, etc. So it is not such a setback to Sri Lanka, but they have not been able to resolve the issue altogether, or they have not come to a point when the international community accepts what happens in Sri Lanka. But the interesting thing is the vote. The resolution was supported by 22 countries, but 11 countries opposed it, and 14 countries abstained, including India. So the argument that the Sri Lankans had, they of course rejected the resolution. That is normal. Nobody accepts a human rights resolution and takes a responsibility. They have rejected the resolution, but they expressed satisfaction that the majority members of the resolution have not supported it. But of the council. The council, which is only 22 out of 47, and therefore the majority has either abstained or voted against. So this is one point that the Sri Lankan delegation made after the resolution was adopted. And they also pointed out that major countries like China, Russia, India, etc. are not part of this resolution. As far as India's point is concerned, we have to consider various factors. We have been very concerned about the situation after the war. Because everyone knows that India remained neutral during the war. Of course, India's Sri Lanka policy has given full circle, starting with support for Prabhakaran to get higher autonomy in the Tamil provinces. In fact, even arms were supplied to the Tamil Tigers in the early stages by India. Then we tried to bring about a resolution between Jayavardhan and Prabhakaran. And India, in fact, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi signed that agreement. And in the process, he lost his life. Then the IPKF going into Sri Lanka brought the Tamil Tigers against the Indian Army. And after that, India decided to eliminate terrorism in Sri Lanka. So we have come all the way. But during the war, we kept a neutral position thereby enabling the Sri Lankan forces to defeat the Tamil Tigers. And they have completely lost their leadership, etc. And they don't have any strength at the moment. But there are responsibilities increased because we as India, with a large Tamil population in our own country, cannot afford to allow the Tamil community to be eliminated or put into distress. And therefore, we have been following a policy of persuading the Sri Lankan government to bring the 13th amendment to the constitution that agreed to do, which would have given the Tamil still some autonomy in their regions, and also to rehabilitate them. And India actually provided considerable amount of money for this purpose and also tried to persuade the Tamil community to cooperate with the Sri Lankan government to bring peace and reconciliation. This has been India's effort. But of course, quite understandably, Sri Lanka feels that India is not as helpful to them as we should have. Because they have won the war, they now say that there is only one Sri Lanka and only one kind of people in Sri Lanka. There is no minority problem, there is no Tamil problem, we are all Sri Lankans. That is the approach that the new Sri Lankan government has adopted. This we can never accept. So on the one hand, India has a major interest in seeing that the Tamil interests are protected. On the other hand, we want reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka. Because if the situation continues, if there is no political solution to the problem in Sri Lanka, sooner or later the Tamil movement will gain strength and then the situation will be again go back to the old times of killings and wars and problems, which India does not want. So India weighed this and these resolutions have come in the past also. At one time, during Dr. Manohar Singh's time, India was so irritated by the very rigid position that Sri Lanka was taking and therefore India supported the western resolution at one point. And then of course, there was a lot of criticism that India should wield influence rather than join with the west to criticize Sri Lanka. From there, we have moved as Sri Lankans have also become more reasonable in dealing with the Tamils. India has moved that position into a position of abstention against this resolution. We could not have supported it because we do not want to put the Sri Lankans on the spot and say that there should be international investigation. Because we ourselves do not believe in international intervention in domestic affairs. So we could not, reasonably we voted for that resolution earlier. But now the situation is slowly improving. So we would like to see that Sri Lankans should be encouraged to bring the criminals or culprits of the war to justice and at the same time enable the Sri Lankans to live in peace. And therefore India said that we have two different fundamental considerations as far as Sri Lanka is concerned. One is to support the Tamils for equality and justice. And that is why we keep asking for the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which will give some autonomy to the Tamil religion regions even now even though they have been decimated and they are in poverty and there is trouble still. And at the same time ensuring the unity, stability and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. So this is a very balanced position that India has taken. And in their heart of hearts Sri Lanka is happy. In fact after India explained its vote in these ways, these two fundamental angles of the resolution the Sri Lankan delegation thanked India for the understanding even though they criticized us for not opposing the resolution. So, but interesting things are also that the other member countries of the council has only 47 members. But Bangladesh is a member, Pakistan is a member, India is a member, China of course is a more or less a permanent member. So the heavyweights in the region are not supporting the western position. So this is what has given some comfort to the Sri Lankan government. Secondly, they are not accepting the resolution. They are not even accepting the position that High Commissioner for Human Rights can call it in form, analyze etc. That is the mandate given to that. Even that they are not going to accept. They are not going to allow the Human Rights Commissioner to visit and create problems and raise hopes amongst some people etc. So what they are doing is basically to bring this to a conclusion. And in my view, this particular resolution has given Sri Lanka time to find a political solution. And that political solution should include constitutional powers back to the Tamil communities, fixing responsibility for whatever crimes have been committed during the war and also to ensure the integrity and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. So this is not a complete victory for the Sri Lankans nor is it a defeat. So they have quite managed the situation quite well. And they are good at it because this has been happening for many, many years. The Tamil Tigers as you know had vast international networks and funding from other countries. And therefore Sri Lanka had handled the situation quite well in the last several years. And so using all that influence that they have on the one hand and the support they have in South Asia and the major countries in the region. And of course other countries like Russia are also supporting them. So they are gradually moving towards a resolution of the issue other than an international investigation. So the concern is more than the investigation and accountability issues while they remain and that have to be resolved. The idea that Sri Lanka itself must put their democratic processes in order, their internal domestic process in order so that the situation improves. So in the given circumstances Sri Lanka has got some time till the 51st session of the Council they have time. And my feeling is that as it happened in the case of the investigation of the pandemic in China. A formula will be worked out between the Sri Lankans informally with the commissioner for human rights. And they voluntarily take certain action to punish the guilty and also to give Tamil's political solution and thus resolve this problem. But it is not going to go away immediately because the champions of human rights all around the world are engaged in this effort. And it will continue to be on the agenda of the council. The Western world has always wanted the human rights council to be much more powerful so that countries guilty of violation of human rights should be punished. But if you look at the history of human rights right from the beginning of the United Nations is that even though the Human Rights Commission at that time, I used to work in the commission for quite some time. So at that time they were very active and many things were done. Basically in terms of standardizing human rights starting from the famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights to several covenants, treaties, declarations, resolutions etc. Human rights now council used to be commissioned and it was made into a council by the Americans basically to make it more powerful like the security council. So that it can take action against guilty people. But this has never been an objective exercise. Over the years we have seen it is the weaker countries developing countries who are put on the mat as it were and criticized or they are asked to do ABCD. While the more powerful countries like China or even the United States which are guilty of racism which is guilty of violation of human rights do not get criticized. So the whole approach of the Human Rights Council has turned out to be not very objective. And it is a matter of countries being able to manipulate the situation in such a way that they do not suffer. If you say objectively it should be done that also may not be maybe difficult and therefore India has taken a decision sometime ago when I was there at the commission that these countries specific resolutions of the Human Rights Council. We will not support unless they are unanimous. Because there is a certain tendency of Western countries or others to for political reasons to target certain countries. And when they target like that the powerful countries get away and the smaller countries like Cuba used to be in trouble for a long time. Iran used to be in trouble for a long time. And therefore now the whole thing is a political thing when it started it was between the East and the West. Human rights debate was used basically for criticizing the Eastern Bloc. But after the end of the Cold War some of the Eastern Bloc countries became even more committed to human rights. All these new democracies have become even more committed to human rights. Not only the United States of Canada or UK. So the adherence to these treaties and declarations etc have changed because of the geopolitical situation. So those who used to support all these declarations earlier were West alone but later others came in. And even India had a huge issue at one time when Pakistan put up a resolution against India in 1993. We of course defeated it. It did not go on to the floor but we were not very sure that we would be able to defeat it. But we tried our very best. Mr. Vajpayee was the leader of the opposition, went to Geneva as the leader of the Indian delegation. Together with Mr. Khurshin and we fought very hard, we travelled around the world to get votes for us. And little in the last moment we didn't know what would happen because there was so much of dramatization of the so-called situation in Yemen and Kashmir. Because soon after the Cold War therefore Pakistan thought that India could be defeated. But at the end last minute Pakistan withdrew the resolution on an appeal from Iran much to the comfort of all of us. Because we did not want such a thing to happen or lose the vote. Maybe we would not have lost the vote but still we were happier that way. So this is how these things are handled. China for example if they think that they do not have the votes to defeat a resolution. They follow some other procedure, no action motion. They say let us have a vote, there is no time so we don't want to consider this. And therefore without considering the material issues in the resolution, let us take a no action motion. And then some countries are able to support China. So this is a very difficult situation. It is not objective and most of these conventions and declarations etc. people sign but they also make reservations of various kinds. We have ourselves had a problem with the reference to self-determination in the political government. We have made a reservation on that because we believe that self-determination is applicable only to foreign dominated territories not independent territories. And that is still our position. And even on some of the issues like child labour, India has a different position. So the exercise in the Human Rights Council is to see that this whole range of literature that has been produced to establish certain standards in each. It is a thematic consideration on certain themes like arresting of individuals, like violation of rights of journalists etc. So there are those themes and there are country specific resolutions. So the country specific resolutions often become becoming targeting of countries. So though we have voted for the Sri Lanka resolution once at a very crucial point. We now believe or we generally believe that these country specific resolutions should not be supported unless all the countries or also members of the Council are convinced about it. So now what next? Certainly the Ornacies on the Sri Lankans to find a solution. They have to first of all remove this impression gained in the last two years that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is deteriorating. One example which was given was during the pandemic, Sri Lankans insisted that no dead bodies should be buried of people who died of COVID-19. And this heard the sentiments of the Muslims who would not want to cremate their dead bodies. And so this was considered a grave human rights violation and this was pointed out even though it was legitimate because the pandemic victims could be dangerous if the bodies are not burned. But for the Muslims in Sri Lanka there's always a tradition of their burying these bodies. So this was also pointed out as one of the violations of human rights even though required by the concerns about the pandemic. So in all these matters and also allowing Tamals to perform their duties and have a peaceful life and give them some autonomy to themselves. And by doing that establish the crimes committed by the Tamil Tigers on the one hand and the war crimes committed by Sri Lankan soldiers. And these are all recorded, lots of films and lots of recorded evidence created by the West during the war. Because even when you commit to fight a war you are supposed to maintain a certain amount of human rights protection. At that time the president of Sri Lanka said we are fighting this war with a gun in one hand and the human rights resolutions on the other. So what he said was that these are our own people so though we are killing them we will make sure that their human rights are known by nature. That's an exaggeration. For them it was an out and out war and they just wanted to decimate the Tamals, finish off the Tigers and break peace into a country. And so it is in their own interest to move forward and start this process and keep the Human Rights Commissioner for Human Rights who is a very enthusiastic lady. She is very much in favour of intervention in the domestic affairs of countries to protect human rights. She is from Chile and she has been a victim of human rights violations and so on. So she is very particular. Even in the case of India she wanted to intervene at the time of 18370 and so on. So she has a record like that. And therefore she will certainly try to use this resolution in order to force the Sri Lankans to take some action. But I don't think she will get an international investigation in place and that is now more or less removed. So India's position as well as those who oppose the resolution and abstain on the resolution has given opportunity for Sri Lanka and a considerable length of time to take action in order to avoid any kind of external intervention. So if external intervention has to, it is there, the Muckles sword is still hanging because the resolution says you will collate and collect and analyze etc. So that is in the resolution and the commissioner has to report to the council in the future session. So it's not gone away. So with that the Muckles sword hanging Sri Lankans if they want to can take action in over a period of time, work it out with the commissioner and make sure that this issue goes away. So in that sense, it is neither a defeat for Sri Lanka nor a great victory, but it opens out two or three things. It opens out the possibility of a political solution which India has always been urging. Secondly, an opportunity for them to fix the responsibility for whoever is committed crimes and thirdly make sure that their integrity, territorial integrity and their sovereignty are protected. So in that sense, I think this is a positive outcome, but since they were not able to outrightly reject the resolution, some people may say this is setback for Sri Lanka. But in my view, it is not a setback, it is a process which goes on in the United Nations human rights bodies. And if you play your game carefully, which Sri Lanka is capable of diplomatically robust diplomacy and willing to make concessions, then they will be able to maybe avoid another resolution in the next session of the human rights council. Thank you.