Editorial-June 16, 2014
The UNP and the JVP are in a dilemma. They are wary of antagonising the countries bent on taming the Rajapaksa government they themselves are striving to topple. At the same time, they know it is political hara-kiri to oppose the UPFA’s resolution against the UNHRC move and be seen to be supporting a war crimes probe against the armed forces. They have sought to wriggle out of this difficult situation by highlighting the human rights violations by the UPFA during the last few years and calling upon the government to investigate them before seeking the Opposition’s support for its resolution.
Speculation is rife in parliamentary circles that the JVP and the UNP may take part in the debate on the government resolution, castigate the ruling coalition for its human rights violations, hold it responsible for creating conditions for an international probe at issue and skip the vote so as to remain non-committal where the UNHRC move is concerned. The UNP has already gone on record as saying that the UNHRC will go ahead with its probe regardless of parliamentary resolutions here and consulting Parliament at this juncture is an exercise in futility.
Some of the prominent Opposition politicians are of the view that the government ought to face the UNHRC probe and present its case without running away again. The UPFA with a two-thirds majority in Parliament can easily ensure the passage of its resolution with or without the Opposition support, they argue. The government’s problem is that having resisted a war crimes probe so fiercely in Geneva all these years it cannot opt for a volte-face. It has crossed the Rubicon and there is no going back. It will be able to have its resolution ratified with ease, but that will lack weight without the backing of at least the main Opposition party, the UNP.
Meanwhile, UNP Sajith Premadasa has warned that the UNHRC probe will lead to economic sanctions on Sri Lanka. But, why should the western powers behind that investigation resort to such extreme measures? The current dispensation is as malleable as its predecessors though its leaders bellow anti-western rhetoric from time to time for the consumption of their supporters. It has watered down the national medicinal drug policy which, in its original form, would have adversely impacted the interests of the western-dominated pharmaceutical industry, and suspended a ban on harmful agro chemicals manufactured by transnational companies. Moreover, it follows open market policies. Instead of using sanctions, those members of the international community not so well disposed towards it may consider taming it because that way they could advance their not-so-hidden agenda better.
If the western governments really want to impose economic sanctions on Sri Lanka they do not have to take the trouble of manipulating the UNHRC and having war crimes probe conducted. They could do so straightaway and nobody is going to stop them. Their priorities are different and they have bigger issues to contend with. In Iraq, their regime change strategy has boomeranged with an al-Qaeda offshoot planning to march on Baghdad. Libya is in utter chaos. So is Egypt. The Arab Spring has given way to a winter of despair. Therefore, they may not want to plunge another country into crisis by making its economy scream.
The government’s concerns about the UNHRC war crimes probe need to be appreciated. The UN investigators are bound to come out with the same conclusions as the UNSG’s panel of experts who put out the controversial Darusman Report. But, why the Opposition is not willing to support the resolution in question is understandable. The government consults Parliament selectively to further its interests while doing everything in its power to undermine its authority at other times without caring two hoots about the Opposition’s opinion.






