Sri Lanka: The Case Against An International Monitoring Mission
A panel discussion titled ‘Sri Lanka: The case against an International Monitoring Mission’, was held today (Friday, March 07th) on the sidelines of the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council in Room IX of the Palais des Nations from 13:20 to 14:45. It was attended by over 45 representatives from states, civil society organizations and the media. The discussion was moderated by Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations at Geneva H.E. Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka.
[Panel discussion on Mar 7, 2008]
In his introductory remarks Ambassador Jayatilleka said that the position of the Government of Sri Lanka regarding international monitoring was very clear as it maintains an open door policy and cooperates fully with the mechanisms and procedures of the United Nations system for the protection and promotion of human rights.
He pointed out that Sri Lanka had opened up itself up for scrutiny to a degree to which very few countries-if any-beset by armed conflict had done. Sri Lanka has been constructively engaged with UN mechanisms, however, Dr. Jayatilleka stressed that Sri Lanka will not permit any UN or other international monitoring mission in the country for the foreseeable future. “Engagement, yes; permanent monitoring mission or external presence on the ground, no†he emphasized.
Addressing the participants Mahinda Samarasinghe the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights and the head of the Sri Lanka delegation to the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council, appreciated the solidarity and the support expressed by the delegate of China in Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism while protecting human rights. In his remarks at the discussion, the representative of China expressed surprise at the calls by some countries for the establishment of a monitoring mission in Sri Lanka.
The Minister added that Sri Lanka had, over the past year, received and facilitated visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, Special Representative of the Secretary General on Internally Displaced Persons Mr. Walter Kälin, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Sir John Holmes and the Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs of the United Nations Angela Kane.
Sri Lanka has shown transparency and access to the maximum extent possible given the very complex and dangerous situation that exists especially in the conflict affected regions. Minister Samarasinghe pointed out that the visit of High Commissioner Louise Arbour to Jaffna was facilitated in such a manner that she was able to meet, among others, with the families of the alleged victims of disappearances without the presence of any members of the government of Sri Lanka including those from the security forces assigned for her own protection.
Minister Samarasinghe explained that since the government had nothing to hide, it agreed to the request from the High Commissioner for confidential meetings with the Bishop of Jaffna, civilians and civil society organizations while being fully aware that the LTTE could have had its potential agents use such meetings to get its message across to the High Commissioner.
However, the government did turn down the request by both High Commissioner Arbour and the other top UN officials to visit the LTTE controlled areas of Killinochichi as such visits in the past had been used by the LTTE for propaganda purposes.
The Minister elaborated that when the Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak visited Sri Lanka, he requested the Minister to allow him unannounced and unfettered access to prisons and other detention facilities. The Minister after consulting the President, agreed to this request as this was necessary for Mr. Nowak to discharge his mandate. The Government agreed to Mr. Nowak’s request after the UN Resident Coordinator assured that it would guarantee Mr. Nowak’s safety and security. Similar unfettered access was provided to Prof. Walter Kalin.
Following her visit to the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka Angela Kane reported to the Consultative Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (CCHA) that the Government should be commended for its work in the newly liberated Eastern Province.
‘This is the kind of access we have provided and will continue to provide’ Minister Samarasinghe stressed.
He reemphasized that the position of the government of Sri Lanka continues to be that it does not require an international monitoring mission. However, Sri Lanka is willing to explore the possibility of bolstering the Senior Advisor to the UN Country Team (UNCT) in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka does not require a fully fledged UN Human Rights office since it has competent national human rights institutions which could benefit from capacity building and technical cooperation. The Government of Sri Lanka hopes that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement on this important matter the Minister said.
Responding to a question on the International Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) Minister Samarasinghe said that it is a unique structure composed of eleven eminent persons from eleven countries and who were invited by the Government of Sri Lanka to observe and comment public on the inquiry and investigations of a domestic Commission of Inquiry (COI).
The IIGEP was invited by the Government of Sri Lanka and conferred a mandate of one year. The IIGEP started work in February 2007. In November 2007 it communicated to the government that it would relinquish its mandate at the end of March 2008.
The Minister expressed his regret that the IIGEP has chosen to publicize its departure from Sri Lanka during the current session of the Human Rights Council and noted that this had been its modus operandi-namely to make statements to coincide with the Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva. He still hoped that the IIGEP would change its decision and continue to undertake its work in Sri Lanka.
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary-General of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) in replying to a question said that a UNDP Stocktaking Report on Sri Lanka gives a far more positive view of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka than current wisdom suggests. The failure of two Senior Advisors of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to focus attention of that report and help in capacity building speaks volumes about the determination instead, supported by a few European countries that were not aware of the existence of this report, to establish a monitoring mission responsible ‘to me’, as the High Commissioner so eloquently put it a few months before announcing her own imminent retirement.
He said that Sri Lanka continues to enjoy cordial relations with senior officials at the United Nations, and has since welcomed visits by two Special Rapporteurs whose reports have proved helpful. However indiscretions continue on the part of junior staffers. The sometimes symbiotic relationship between such individuals and agencies determined to denigrate member states of the United Nations is apparent in the heightened and instant publicity given on Relief Web to the increasingly repetitive allegations of Human Rights Watch.
Prof. Wijesinha spoke of the recent steps taken by the Government to recruit Tamil speaking police officers and appreciated the risks they were taking in light of threats from the LTTE.
He pointed out that it was not entirely coincidental, another regular feature of the ’silly season’ is a release from the international Independent Group of Eminent Persons, (IIGEP) that the Sri Lankan government set up with such hope. Though the eminence of the individuals in the group cannot be questioned, as with the UN, salient interventions are made by their assistants. These made clear their own agenda, when they tried to steamroll a response from the Commission of Inquiry last year to one of their first reports.
When the Commission asked for time so that all its members could gather, they were told that the report had to be released urgently in time for the meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. Needless to say, such finely timed finger pointing was not part of the IIGEP mandate, and doubtless was not the primary purpose of the Eminent Persons themselves, but in the Human Rights industry, tails nowadays tend to wag dogs.
The other panelist present included the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms Mr. Suhada Gamalath, Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Defence Mr. Mohan Peiris P.C. and the Deputy Solicitor-General Mr. W J S Fernando.
Nam said,
March 8, 2008 @ 5:10 am
It was like reading a comic book when I read the events and quotes from this.
QUOTE : In his introductory remarks Ambassador Jayatilleka said that the position of the Government of Sri Lanka regarding international monitoring was very clear as it maintains an open door policy and cooperates fully with the mechanisms and procedures of the United Nations system for the protection and promotion of human rights.
RESPONSE: So they invited the International Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) to supervise the process, OR SO they think?, then the minister went on and said
Quote : The Minister expressed his regret that the IIGEP has chosen to publicize its departure from Sri Lanka during the current session of the Human Rights Council and noted that this had been its modus operandi-namely to make statements to coincide with the Human Rights Council sessions in Geneva. He still hoped that the IIGEP would change its decision and continue to undertake its work in Sri Lanka.
Response: Funny they invited and not allowed to work and now begging….
What did IIGEP said?
Quote: ‘the IIGEP is of the opinion that there has not been the minimum level of trust necessary for the success of the work of the Commission and the IIGEP’.
So the Sec. to the SCOOP went on further and said: Needless to say, such FINELY TIMED FINGER POINTING was not part of the IIGEP mandate, and doubtless was not the primary purpose of the Eminent Persons themselves, but in THE HUMAN RIGHTS INDUSTRY, TAILS NOWADAYS TEND TO WAG DOGS.
Possibly quoting the HRW’s contribution and influence’
Finally the entire panelists are hardcore SINAHALESE and why was Annandasangaree the defender of Human rights and a recipient of UN award was not included?
A pack were sent to this tea party possibly in the first class airline ticket on tax payer’s money when a loaf of bread is unaffordable by the poor Silva and Siva.
What a government and its cronies.
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
March 8, 2008 @ 5:42 am
For this powwow to be objective and have some form of integrity
there should have been prominent representatives of Lankans from here and the diaspora – who hold a different view to that of GoSL.
Without this essential ingredient the whole thing is a sham.
Sri said,
March 8, 2008 @ 7:32 am
This seems to be a peculiar panel discussion.usually in a panel discussion you have people with different views. The discussion was on Sri Lanka: The case against an International Monitoring Mission.
Normally in any panel discussion someone would have represented the opposing view – the case for international monitoring mission Who did it?
Further the discussion was moderated by Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations at Geneva H.E. Ambassador Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka.
Usually the moderator is an independent person. Why the organizers packed the panel with government supporters. The experts from the government were uneasy to face critical comments.
Since the panel was dominated by Ambassadors from Sri Lanka, there was only a competition as to who lies mostly for the government?
M C G Devan said,
March 8, 2008 @ 8:34 am
With regard to HR, better solution is to call for UN peace keeping force to be present in Sri lanka inorder tostop the ongoing war and develop the country. Also safe guard civilians to their day to day life.
The SL govt wasting lots of money for the war where as somany people in the world have no food specially in Africa.
Dayan said,
March 8, 2008 @ 10:27 am
It is very sad story that the human rights violators are within the UN and manipulating the lives of thousnds of innocent children and women.
How are we going to protect the innocent children in the North & East while there is no authority of GOSL in that region?
GOSL does not know the ground situation in the North & East since the region is controlled by Tamil Armed Forces.
The air stikes on the Tamil population is widespread and the GOSL accepted several times that the SLAF carried out such an attacks on selected targets which happened to be civilian targets.
Without the UN presence in the North & East, the world would not listen to the SL propaganda and continued killings of innocent Tamils.
How can we prevent the killings of the defenders of Tamil population, such as parlimentarians of Tamils?
The affected people of North & East require protection from a third party, UN.
nathan said,
March 8, 2008 @ 11:24 am
This shows that the UH Human Rights Council is a ‘passive’ forum which merely listens to representatives of nations engaged actively in human rights violations and does nothing thereafter.
It is a lie that Louise Arbour was allowed to meet with relatives of victims of ‘disappearances’.
How can LTTE use UN personnels’ visit to the Wanni use it for “propaganda” purposes ?
The lame excuse of “security” is used to prevent any outside visiters from access to the public.
The BBC Channel 4 Team was thus prevented, but succeeded in giving a factual report which accuses the GoSL of “abductions, disappearances and murder”
So far none of the international or UN visiters have been allowd to speak in private with the public or civil society organisations – lest the truth will come out.
A crowd which waited for hours to meet Arbour for was dispersed by the army.
What action was taken on reports by Arbour, Holmes, Novak and Kane was not said.
The IIGEP has said in no uncertin terms that the Commission of Inquiry which they were supposed to monitor is an “eyewash’.
China representative’s comments were foreseeable – from a nation which wants political support and which itself is accused of HRViolations.
Many nations of UNO are active HRViolaters and are not interested in the deliberations of the HRCouncil.
SL government is terrified of a permanent UN HR monitoring commission.
Sam Thambipillai said,
March 10, 2008 @ 10:46 am
At the panel discussion held in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleka stressed on the policy of the Sri Lankan state that Sri Lanka will not permit any UN or other international monitoring mission in the country for the foreseeable future. Engagement, yes; permanent monitoring mission or external presence on the ground, no he emphasized.
This is the display of arrogance of a state that is criminal and is determined to be more criminal.
Sri Lankan state will not permit a UN monitoring mission because the criminal Sinhala soldiers will then have to be brought to justice and punished. It is defintely a taboo inthe island now!
Addressing the participants Mahinda Samarasinghe the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights and the head of the Sri Lanka delegation to the Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council, appreciated the solidarity and the support expressed by the delegate of China in Sri Lankas war against terrorism while protecting human rights.
Is China knowing to protect the human rights of its own citizens? It is still learning. Therefore, it expressed surprise at the calls by some countries for the establishment of a monitoring mission in Sri Lanka.
Further, the Minister added that Sri Lanka had, over the past year, received and facilitated visits by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, Special Representative of the Secretary General on Internally Displaced Persons Mr. Walter Kälin, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Sir John Holmes and the Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs of the United Nations Angela Kane.
True, but did all the visits of powerful people from the UN change anything in Sri Lanka to reduce human rights violations or bring justice to the victims? No
Only a monitoring mission from outside could be impartially expected to bring the truth, which is a precursor to justice.
V Siva said,
March 10, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Is UN Human Rights a political organization to help state terrorism and not investigating War Criminals?
Despite Ccrimes committed against humanity by the GOSL, why should the UN body wait and seek permission to visit and conduct investigation?
Human Rights body should work independently and there should not be any political pressure or interference in its work by anyone. Else, the credibility of UN Human Rights organization is at stake and it will become a joke!
UN Staff, please read the report on “Disappearences” released by Human Rights Watch on 06 March 2008.
V Siva said,
March 10, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Independent Human Rights Offices, War Crimes Investigators and Journalists must be in Tamil areas to witness, collect info and report details of crimes committed and that will help to take action against the criminals.
There is no transparency by the Sinhala government and detailed information are reported in the Human Rights Watch report on “Disapperences”.
Tamils are losing faith in the Global bodies including the UN Human Rights Organization and India as no action has been taken against criminals.
Ten times of people have been raped, butchered in Eelam than in Kosovo and Western nations have failed to act to date. Britain has amoral duty to put an end to war crimes and occupation of Sinhala forces as they handed over the power to the Sinhala regime when they left Sri lanka. Please help stop “Crimes Against Humanity”.
Dayan Jayatilleka said,
March 13, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
there was very strong representation from the tamil Diaspora at the meeting. that included fr bernard, mr kirpaharan and mr arjunan ethiriweerasingham. human rights watch and amnesty international were also present, as were many sri lankan based NGO leaders such as ms sunila abeysekara.