The reasons above appear to be partially querulous to for the regime to abstain from the implementation of the recommendations its LLRC. These reasons listed above are nothing but a child’s play in pre-school. The reasons above further describe the reluctance of the regime to implement the recommendations as it will be subject for monitoring. That is the regime does not like a third party governing these recommendations implemented so that it cannot have its casual approach or the reluctance anybody requesting to fulfill all the recommendations. In other words the government cannot have its usual blind eye once again and as it is being requested and monitored by a third party.
l by Robin Hood
Defending human rights
(April 08, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The official statement made by the foreign minister rejecting to accept to implement the resolution adopted in the United Nations HRC is a serious blunder committed by the Rajapakse regime in the long run. Presenting to implement and rejecting for no reason to substantiate its credibility confirms nothing but ostentation of the government. The expectation of the international community from Sri Lanka is, there is a formal presidential commission appointed to which there are recommendations made, go ahead and implement it within a given timeframe and provide us the information it intends to do with the respect of the LLRC
The government’s reason for rejecting the resolution implies none other than the following reasons.
- We would have implemented this if the this was not subject to pass the HRC
- We rejected this simply because we do not wish anybody requesting, monitoring and governing the process how we implement.
- We decided not to implement as this has taken wide publicity and international focus.
- We do not let the resolution to compromise the sovereignty of our nation.
The reasons above appear to be partially querulous to for the regime to abstain from the implementation of the recommendations in the LLRC. These reasons listed above are nothing but a child’s play in pre-school. The reasons above further describe the reluctance of the regime to implement the recommendations as it will be subject for monitoring. That is the regime does not like a third party governing these recommendations implemented so that it cannot have its casual approach or the reluctance anybody requesting to fulfill all the recommendations. In other words the government cannot have its usual blind eye once again and as it is being requested and monitored by a third party.
The reasons above do not substantiate whatsoever for the SL regime to reject the entire resolution adopted. It further implies the government’s reluctance anybody monitoring how it is implemented. This appears to be a bunch of kids attitude in a classroom where there is a monitor appointed to see the conduct of students in the absence of a teacher. It can be further described the students rejects the presence of an examiner during an exam so they can break the rules.
One can raise the question; the rejecting of the proposal for such flimsiest reasons above is that to keep the proposal only into books or created for a genuine intention to implement it. Finding the silly reasons above and rejecting confirms the regime is purposely playing its immature hide and seek politics with the international community.
It’s very weird to see why the SL regime is so frightened about the word human rights? A small child even can disclose that rejecting somebody monitoring is nothing but fear of exposing its plunder. It is a pity to see a report of 407 pages is just being dismissed as it was adopted through a resolution. In fact it’s very regrettable to see the immature diplomatic dealings of the regime in an international arena. In the eyes of the international Sri Lanka has becoming a fail state which has no capacity to implement its own policies into practice. The government foreign policy was unable to compile and execute a clear action plan necessary to deal with international relations. We have been unable to win the confidence of the international community in any of our dealings.
The readers should keep in mind the war crime charges brought by the HRC are not only against Sri Lanka but to the LTTE. The very reason for the regime is unable to implement certain recommendations in the LLRC is that the remaining LTTE leaders are now under the influence of the government. From this it is evident and clear the regime is convicted that it is not in a position to implement the accountabilities in the LLRC though it’s passed the resolution in the HRC or not.
Prof. G.L Pieris said that US congress parliament chairperson Ms. Ros. Lehtinem has said the UNHRC is a politicized body and advised the US should withdraw from the HRC and create a more credible forum to address HR issues is incorrect. Mr. Pieris has forgotten to state the prior statement told by her and misunderstood the whole meaning of what Ms. Ros said. She has stated the members in the HRC are politicized who protects human rights abusers and the US should withdraw. Below is the statement given by her?
“Any limited, tactical gains made by U.S. engagement at the council are outweighed by the harm done through granting legitimacy to the fundamentally illegitimate body. The fact is that, with or without the U.S., the HRC remains dominated by rogue’s regimes that protect human rights abusers and target free democracies like Israel”
HRC is not a body formed to give jurisdiction; it is a council of member states who give their support to another friendly state, against another or abstain voting solely based on benefits and influence. More than asserting the HRC is a politicized body it is the member states that are highly politicized. Each member state influences the other to vote in support or against which is undue. However HRC is constituted is on the basis of states, during voting if a resolution is passed against a country the same country allege the council is a politicized body and if the resolution is defeated it is the other way around which is very primitive and pretext. If the HRC to be none politicized and to be more credible it should be a body mandated to give due jurisdictions constituted by accountability. In simple words there should be a robust mechanism to count the accountability of each state.
If the Rajapakse regime is in the view of rejecting the entire recommendations there will be increasing focus of the international community towards Sri Lanka which is blameworthy.