The “Hot Potato” Which Came Wrapped Up From Geneva
By Bandu de Silva –September 23, 2015
Bandu de Silva
The “Hot Potato” Which Came Wrapped Up From Geneva Which Had To Be Spewed Out
“It’s not as hot as we anticipated, not a hot potato. It is not blood curdling and the report has not mentioned any names,” Samaraweera declared. He opined the OISL report was more “a narrative” and as declared therein, was a “human rights investigation and not a criminal one.”
That is how The Sunday Times (September 20th) Political editor put across External Affairs Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s response immediately after a cursory glance at the UNHRC report which he received on September 11, 2015 through UNHRC High Commissioner’s special envoy. So, for the Minister, it was not the ‘hot potato’ that many people expected. Going on to details, he had said there was no naming of any people. Even later addressing the media in Colombo he repeated that the UNHRC report was only a “human rights investigation and not a criminal one.” That is what the Sri Lankan Government also informed the High Commissioner through the Note Verbale sent by the Foreign Ministry in Colombo on 15th September, complying with the five-day time – frame allowed to the government to reply.
The unfolding events, nevertheless, point to what came wrapped up from Geneva was a hot potato indeed, which, as Dr. Samuel Johnson did, had to be spewed out. What External Affairs Minister, Mangala Samaraweera who seemed to be all upbeat over the report, and reportedly became outspoken to the extent of discussing with the media on Friday 18th September, even the modeling of the Hybrid Special Court which the UNHRC report was insisting on, has within three days found the potato too hot and thought of spewing it out to the amusement of onlookers. As Dr. Johnson said, he could tell those who are amused that “only a fool would have swallowed it”.
Now the question is “Will the UNHRC report then remain a virtual ‘Sweet-potato’ that the government wishfully made out to be at the outset? One doubts? If it is going to be the ‘sweet-potato’ or even a worm-infested ‘kunu-batala,’ familiar in the Sri Lankan market, can one think that the UNHRC and the investigating trio appointed by UNHRC following the US sponsored resolution at the Council session in 2014, had wasted their time and public funds on this account. That is the main question now in the face of the understanding reached a few weeks back by the governments of US and Sri Lanka which was laid bare during the most recent visit of the US State Department’s two Assistant Secretaries to Sri Lanka.
The two visitors from US were not the decision makers. They were only the mouth pieces for the US government. The decisions were made earlier from the time of change of government (Wenasa) in Colombo starting from January 8, 2015 with the formation of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government. State Secretary Kerry laid down the parameters and the Biswal-Malinowski team which followed after the August 17 General Election which further confirmed the electorate’s decision for the change of government, confirmed the US decision on the future action in Geneva supporting an independent local investigation into alleged human rights abuses and criminal acts against civilians. The US decision announced in Colombo constituted a complete course-change from her previous stand calling for nothing less than an international inquiry which was demonstrated by her strong sponsorship of the Geneva Resolution on Sri Lanka which was carried out by majority vote resulting in the present UNHRC report. Read More
