H. L. D. Mahindapala

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ When the first-born apex institution to protect human rights, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, is killed and buried unceremoniously by its founding fathers at the UN for failing to live up to its mandate it is legitimate to ask whether its successor, the United Nations Human Rights Council, can survive ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” and if so for how long? — if that too goes down the same path as its diseased and deceased predecessor. Besides, the Council is ineluctably stuck in a world where there isnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t a single major visible trend on the global screen which can either promise or guarantee the durability or the success of human rights as a universal and indivisible force in the foreseeable future.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The most visible features threatening human rights are: ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ increasing religious, sectarian and separatist violence, increasing IDPs (21 million at the last count) and refugees, boat people, forcible recruitment of children into futile wars, environmental degradation, explosions of violence spinning out of control, particularly in the Middle East, natural and man-made disasters, global tensions arisingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  from rival claims for internal and external territories in big and small nations, proliferation of WMDs (biological, chemical and nuclear weapons), ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ rogue states, wildly fluctuating market forces, rampant poverty, drug cartels, corruption atƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  governmental, international (including UN), corporate and individual levels, repeated failures of international institutions (example: UN) and power blocs to eschew double standards in judging violations of human rights, absolute failure of self-appointed guardians of human rights (like those in I/NGOs) to rise above the agendas of their funding patrons in the West, and other related war crimes and crimes against humanity. None of which augur well for the future of human rights.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ An ominous example that is staring in our faces right now is the Middle East. It continues to spin out of control, with two wars in Syria and Egypt spreading its tentacles and threatening to destabilize the region. How long will it take for Israel — the critical factor — to enter the fray? Obama is about to enter Syria with remote control weapons. Iran is warningƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  that this will escalate into a holocaust. Russia and China are standing steadfastly blocking American-led attempts to launch another devastating military operation in Syria. Where will exploding Middle East leave the rest of the world if the West decides to go ahead with or without UN sanction? What role can the Council play in this escalating crisis to prevent violations of human rights? Which UN agency can count the bodies and determine whose bullets and bombs killed whom, when and where? For instance, will Radhika Coomaraswamy be assigned to wear a new hijab, covering her head and chest, and undertake another peep at the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-dancing boysƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ caughtƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  inƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the cross-fire?ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Though the Council is a toothless tiger, as the apex body set up to protect and promote humanƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  rights itƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  has a role to play, moreƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  so because it claims to be the policeman guarding the rights of the victims of human rights violations.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  How it prioritizes issues of human rights will reveal its neutrality, objectivity and credibility as a reliable and worthy institution guaranteeingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the security and future of human rights on a global scale. But what has been its record so far?

The Geneva- based UN Watch, an independent NGO,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  which has comprehensively researched all statements made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay between September 2008 and June 2010, reported that their findings ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-show a questionable sense of prioritiesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. Here is the relevant quote from its report:

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Ms. Pillay turned a blind eye to most of the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s worst abusers. She made no statement on the human rights situations of 146 countries. She failed to voice any concern for victims in 34 countries rated ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Not FreeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ by Freedom House – meaning those with the worst records, and the most needy victims. She failed to criticize another 50 countries rated ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-partly freeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and 63 countries rated ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-free.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Among the countries not criticized: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), CƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚´te dƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mauritania, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

So why did she leap over all these abusers of human rights and pick on Sri Lanka within days of ending the wars? In her book, The United Nations Human Rights Council, a Critique andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Early Assessment, (Routledge, 2013), Rosa Freedman is focused mainly on Israel. The consistent anti-Israel stance of UNHRC is exposed as an example of how the big powers and regional blocs determine theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  outcome of UNHRC. However, Sri Lanka has skipped her attention. The saga of what happened to Sri Lanka at UNHRC deserves special attention because it is a glaring example of what Big Power politics could do, particularly by using human rights as a tool, to advance their vestedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  interests. What has baffled many Sri Lanka-watchers is the aggressive anti-Sri Lankan line taken by UNHRC when the war was ended but not when the war raged on for 33 years.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ UNHRC galvanized into action against Sri Lanka within the first few days of the war ending. It jumped to the bizarre conclusion that Sri Lanka was guilty of not fighting terrorism ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the plague of our times fought by all big and small powers ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” without observing international norms. Besides, it focusedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  mainly on the concluding days of the last five months of the war in 2009. Ms. Pillay fired her broadside when the EU-sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka was before the Council in May 2009. It was a speech recorded on May 25, 2009, almost immediately after the war ended on May 18, 2009. Her message was played to the Council on May 26, 2009. On what basis did she jump to conclusions against Sri Lanka within a few days of concluding the war? What is clear is that her move ran on parallel lines with the EU resolution.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Above all, on what criteria did she confine her condemnation of Sri Lanka to the last five months of war, leaving out selectively 32 years and seven months of the longest war in Asia in which the Tamil Tiger terrorists used every conceivable weapons of war, including chemical warfare ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  oneƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  and only terrorist group to do so — to establish their quasi state? Were the Nuremberg principles that set the bench marks for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the first time in international law based on the last few months of World War II? Or didƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ those principles cover the entire Nazi period, including the initial crime of aggression?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The background outlined by the UN Watch and Ms. PillayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own hurried speech leave the doors wide open for much questioning: IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t the prioritizing of the Sri Lankan crisis a part of the incorrigible trend of the Council to target selected countries leaving aside the worst abusers of the human rights? Out of 146 countries why did she pick on Sri Lanka? DoesnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t this indicate that the Council is heading into the same grave as its predecessor, the buried Commission, by politicizing its decisions? In her statement condemning Sri Lanka for the way it conducted the war she said: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦.. addressing violations of international humanitarian or human rights law is not a matter of choice or policy; it is a duty under domestic and international lawƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ So did the CEO of human rights violate international law in turning a blind eye to 146 nations among whom are some of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s worst abusers of humanƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  rightsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t this selective politicization of the Sri Lankan issue a deliberate deviation from her ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-duty underƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦. international lawƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, to quote her own words? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t it her moral, legal and political obligationƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  to adhere strictly to the mandate under which she was engaged to protect, promote, preserve human rights without fear or favour? Is she politicizing and bringing UNHRC into disrepute by selective picking which, coincidentally, runs parallel to that of the Western agenda?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Selective politicization is bound to place UNHRC at the extreme end of going the way of its predecessor. ThisƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  trend is alarming. What is going to be the future of human rights and UNHRC if its Chief Guardian decides to play politics with the sacred tenets of human rights? Did she initiate the move against Sri Lanka on her own? Or was she following the resolutionƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  placed before the Council by the EU? The impression given by the movers of the Resolution and its allied apparatchiks in the I/NGOs is that Sri Lanka needs urgent attention as it is an island that is spilling over with the blood of persecuted and oppressedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  minorities, particularly in the last five months of ending the war. Hopefully, her current visit should clear the fog over this myth.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ No oneƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  can argue that the 33-year-old war in Sri Lanka was foughtƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ with paper bullets or cardboardƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  bombs. In fact, the post-war census conducted by the Government puts the figure of the dead around 8000 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” 10,000. But isƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  thisƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the reason that led the Council to put the Government of Sri Lanka in the dock? If the criterion for accusingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  governmentsƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  at war is in counting the loss of lives in the last phase why werenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t Churchill and Truman who won the World War II by carpetƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  bombing German cities and blasting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 200,000 civilians in one hit, not tried before the Nuremberg Courts? ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-BomberƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Harris, the air force commander, who flattened Dresden in the last days of World War II, killingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  over 300,000 German non-combatants was knighted by the Queen. And her government today takes the moral high ground today questioningƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  why Sri Lanka refused to end the war when one of its Foreign Ministers came flying in to end the war to save lives. WhatƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  would Churchill have told a Sri Lankan foreign minister who flew into London in the last days of World War II to stop the war when British forces had moved into the outskirts ofƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Berlin?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The idea to save lives by ending the war has a superficial appeal. But why did the West and human rights activists wait till the last minute to raise this issue? Why didnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t they impose their will when repeated offers to end the war made by international, regional and national peace-makers were rejected contemptuously by the intransigent Tamil leadership? Why was he allowed to drag the war endlessly while the commendable effort of Sri Lanka to end the war was condemned?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Besides, hasnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t the positive results of ending both wars with all the necessary force saved more lives than stopping the war to give oxygen to doomed war criminals? Hitler at least saved hisƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  face by committing suicide. Velupillai Prabhakaran, who offered a cyanide pill to misguided youth sent on suicide missions, did not have the courage to follow the example of the Tamil youth who died for him. This coward was attempting to run as fast as his legs could carry him to escape the advancingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  forces. Is this the man who gave dignity to the Tamils? Invariably, double standards prevail whether in the battle field in Nandikadal or at UNHRC in Geneva.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ If the law is to be applied evenly howƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  many prime ministers and presidents of the West can go unpunished? The UNHRC Resolution against Sri Lanka said ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ So why doesnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t the Council give the lead by applying this principle to Presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama? Example : The cold-blooded targetingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  of Osama bin Laden violated all known laws of international law. Where was the dueƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  process for bin Laden? If it was possible for the Navy Seals to remove his corpse and dump it in the sea why wasnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t he removed alive and given a fair trial in a US court? Undoubtedly, the motive was to kill the enemy at first sight and not to give him a fair chance. He was hunted like an animal and killed within the sight of his wife and children. So what is the moral basis on which America sponsored a resolution against Sri Lanka when it does notƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  observe the laws it preaches to others? Why is only Sri Lanka told that any measure taken to combat terrorism must comply with its obligations under international law? Has America or India ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” two other nation fighting the same scourge ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” set the example in fighting terrorism according to international law?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ What is more, the Resolution brought against Sri Lanka by America and India opens on a hilarious note. The preamble starts by saying: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, / Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Really? Was the war on Iraq that killed millions ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-guided by the Universal Declaration of Human RightsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚? How does the weekly decisions of President Obama to liquidate enemies of USA on a regular basis conform to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United NationsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚? How does IndiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s decision to violate the air space of Sri Lanka and drop ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-parippu bombsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” all in the name of human rights, no doubt ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” square with international laws? And then how does the rapes, incarcerations, killings of students andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  civilians, etc., by Indian forces give her the moral right to vote against its immediate neighbour, accusing Sri Lanka of committing acts whichƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  originated from IndiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s financing, training, directing, and arming of Tamil terrorists to destabilize a friendly neighbour? At least America has the excuse of protecting its national interests from perceived enemies abroad. What is IndiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s excuse? When did Sri Lanka or any of its action threaten India?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The need to target Sri Lanka at the UNHRC in such a mighty hurry cannot be found in fictions of anti-Sri Lankan propaganda. There is only one explanation: prioritizing done according to the political agenda of the Big andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the Powerful. This is confirmed by the hastiness with which Ms. Pillay, rushed to condemn Sri Lanka ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” on parallel lines with that of the EU Resolution — within days of the war ending on May 18, 2009.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Except for bits and pieces of hearsay and some newspaper reports, there was no hard evidence, no statistics, no reports, no nothing before the Council. Not even Channel 4 propaganda. But she was so keen on targeting Sri Lanka that when the Council met on May 26, 2009 she was all set ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” mark you, within a week of the war ending! — to send a recorded message urging the Council to take action against Sri Lanka. Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, took at least the devious step of cooking up evidence to convince the Security Council that there was a case against Iraq. She possibly could not have had anything substantial before her on May 25^th ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the date on which she wrote the report, according to her speech. Not even the cooked up evidence of Gordon Weiss, the UNƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s man in Colombo, who jacked up his figures from 7,000 to 40,000 when he sat down to write his book in Australia. She could not even present herself to the Council as she was busy elsewhere. But she was not that busy to send a recorded message to the Council. Since actions speak louder than pious words her actions reveal that from the word go, with or without her presence, she was out to get Sri Lanka.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Looking back, four years later, her speech amounts to only a bit of sound and fury signifying nothing. By and large, she was repeating a collection of fears orchestrated by the Tamil diaspora and pro-Tamil NGOs — none of which materialized to degradeƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  or destroy the Tamil IDPs. It is natural to fear when an avalanche of 300,000 human beings fall on anyoneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s shoulder. To the credit of the Government of Sri Lanka it must be mentioned that they handled each issue with commendable efficiency and humanitarian concern. As the Editor of the prestigious HINDU, N. Ram, wrote, the TamilƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  IDPs in Manik Farm were far better off than the Tamil refugees in S. Indian camps. Nor did the Tamil Nadu MPs who visited the camps had anything to say aboutƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the conditions of the Tamils who were freed by the Sri Lankan forces from bondage of Prabhakaran who used them as a human shield to protect him.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ What dignity did the Tamils get from a leader who uses hisƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  own people as a human shield when he was on the run? When the Tamils tried to escape his grip they were shot like dogs. Are the Tamils proud of the dignity of seeing their own helpless people shot in the back by their own leaders who claimed to be their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-liberatorsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚? In the end what did Prabhakaran give his people, except death, despair, total devastation and rows and rows of graveyards? There is some sentimental respect left in the sacrifice of the Tamil youth. But what is the dignity left in the brutal violence of a megalomaniac who shot his own people in his last days? Prabhakaran shot into prominence and power by killing his own people. His first scalp was Alfred Duraiyappah. He sustained his power by killing more Tamils than any other force in the battlefield, according to Tamil leaders. And he died killing his own people. Is this the great hero of Tamils?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In every crisis that crops up the first victim is human rights. Everyone talks about the value of human rights in glowing terms but when it comes to action everyone hides behind it for their own safety, or self-interest sacrificing human rights without any qualms. Take the case of NGOs. They have a consultative status in the Council. This high-sounding status simply means that they are given a place to carry negative and twisted tales to the Council, complaining that the states are not performing according to NGO standards. Of course, they are paid to do just that: tell tales to foreign powers that pay them to be in the business of running down their governments. They pose as if they have the answers to all problems of developing nations plagued with domestic and external pressures. Sri Lanka is no exception. But which one of their theories, formulas, paradigms and research papers helped to restore peace and normalcy in the longest war in Asia?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Their partisan approach to back the anti-democratic, anti-peace, anti-national fascism of the Tamil Tigers ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” done, of course, in devious, covert ways in the name of justice and human rights ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” backfired and made them useless interventionists who merely fattened themselves on the oozing blood of the victims of a needless war. Their failure to weigh in decisively to grab the national and international peace offers and end the needless war question their right to speak on behalf of peace or human rights. Instead their policy of appeasing the insatiable political appetite of Velupillai Prabhakaran, backed by brutal violence, encouraged the Tamil terrorists to pursue violence to the bitter end.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Besides, any realistic and fair assessment of Sri Lanka can be judged only against a panoramic global background. Those who demand the highest and ideal standards of conduct from Sri Lanka denigrate the nation with glee as the worst case scenario of a failed state. This approach is more like blinded Cyclops taking into consideration only the surface and not the depths that escapes their attention. These same critics ignore the failures of the so-called advanced societies to live up to the ideal standards they set for Sri Lanka. The current frontal attack on Sri Lanka based on enforcing norms that are not applied to others (examples: India and USA) questions the validity not only of the essence of international humanitarian law but also the fairness of the Council to deal with small nations like Sri Lanka raising its head from a 33-year-old war (1976 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” 2009).ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Consider, for instance, the example of the war against Iraq which began with the cooked up evidence on WMDs presented to the UN. After ten years of regime change and after investing $60 billion (and rising) Iraq is yet to find its feet. The bombs have not stopped blowing up peace and stability, norƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  have the deaths and destruction ended though the war was waged to end violence and restore democracy. Nor have the Iraqis derived the dividends of peace with adequate provisions of basic necessities like clean water, medicine and infrastructure. It is nothing but fair that any assessment of the Sri Lankan advance towards peace and reconciliation should take into consideration the achievements scored in fourƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  years ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” minus the billions — as opposed to the colossal failures in Iraq after ten years.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ IraqƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s failure is with the backing of the biggest super power on earth who had invested $60 billion and counting. Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s achievements are withoutƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the backing of the super powers. It has advanced in leaps andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  bounds with borrowed money. Imagine where it would be today if itƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  had a fraction of the billions spent on Iraq! Moreover, every conceivable mechanism — legal, political, economic ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” is thrown in to oppose and obstruct the path to peace and stability in post-war Sri Lanka by the very forces that insist on delivering instant progress on all fronts overnight, evenƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  though the mightiest power on earth is still struggling to rise above the bottom level in Iraq.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Post-war Iraq supervised by President Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner,ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  and post-war Sri Lanka supervised by Mahinda Rajapaksa, demonized by the West and UNHRC, are two fair parallels that should be examined objectively and justly to question the contradictory conclusions/judgments passed by the international community in dealing with the respective performances in the post-war period.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  As one American general put it, America adopted a policy of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-occupy and rebuildƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Iraq as opposed to ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-liberate and leave.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ How far has America gone in achieving this goal of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-rebuildingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ after tenƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  years of occupation of Iraq — and then compare that with the achievements of Sri Lanka within four years? There is, no doubt, that Ms. Pillay will be impressed with the monumental achievements in rebuilding war-torn Sri Lanka. With all its infirmities Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s achievements in the post-war period far surpasses that of any achievement in post-war Iraq. So what is the rationale in condemning Sri Lanka for scoring successes that the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s greatest super power failed to achieve after ten years in Iraq?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This is the critical question. Those who cite the standards of the other advanced nations as worthy of emulation by Sri Lanka should also consider whether Sri Lanka deserves to be condemned for succeeding in places where the advanced nations have failed. Oddly enough, the CouncilƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s first resolution commended Sri Lanka for achieving whatƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  other nations fighting terrorism could not achieve. Then, lo and behold, the very same Council reversed its decision, and laid down rules for Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s future conduct. It is the West that first moved theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  resolution against Sri Lanka within days of concluding the 33-year-old war. That was not only defeated but the Council went further toƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  commend Sri Lanka forƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  the way it conducted the war and ended it by rescuing 300,000 Tamil held as hostage by the Tamil fascist leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran. Then why did the Council comeƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  back again, led by US and assisted by India, to reverse the original decision? This is a clear example of the politicization of the Council. What, pray, is the morality of a Council that commends a nation oneƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  day and condemns it the next day? Or was the Council acting on the agenda of a Big Power politics? IsnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t this glaringƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  example of the Council being used as a tool of the Big Powers?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This duplicitous role is most explicitƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  in the part played by India. India backed Sri Lanka in the first resolution and then condemned it in the second resolution. There was no substantial change of evidence between the first resolution and the second. The historico-political realities on the ground remained the same. So on what grounds did India change? Was this volte-face based on moral principles or immoral bootlicking of its domestic and external partners? India talking of human rights is joke after its brutal role in Jaffna.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Consider also the American crime of aggression ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” perhaps the biggest crime in international humanitarian law. It launched two wars against Iraq to protect its oil interests in the Middle East. But these wars were hailed boastfully as great movements to spread democracy and human rights. What have these great democrats and human rights activists achieved in the biggest theatre of their military adventures? Middle East is burning more than ever. The chances of it nearing the goals of democracy, peaceƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  stability and reconciliation are still remote.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ So in passing judgment isnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t it fair to compare Sri Lanka and its record onƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  human rights with that of the mightiest powers on earth defending these values in the Middle East? Besides, in this imperfect world, where there is only an uneven development of history, it is unrealistic to expect Sri Lanka to jump from the ruins of a 33-year-old war into the ideal, Nirvanic state overnight. It take times. And talkingƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  of time, mark you, there were two wars against Iraq ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” one by the father and the other by the son to complete the work that the father could not complete. These were not just and legitimate wars to protect the territorial integrity of a nation. These were wars fought on trumped up charges to promote the economic and global interests of a super power.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Ms. Pillay is under pressure to judge Sri Lanka mainly on how it ended the war.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Before judging SriƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Lanka the task before human rights activists isƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  to consider how the wars in Iraq were caused, conducted andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  concluded. The violations of human rights on all three stages can be sheeted directly to America. Whereas in Sri Lanka the responsibility of causing human rightsƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  violations in all three stages can be blamedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  directly on India ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” the piousƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  humbug who pinches the child andƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  then pretends to rock the cradle. If India kept its hand clean Sri Lanka would not be in thisƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  plight.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Finally, what is on the lips of those concerned with Sri Lanka is what Ms. Pillay would report back to the Council. She has so far taken a strong stand against Sri Lanka. Is she likely to change? Most unlikely. At best she would take the usual stance of having one bob each way. She has also gone along with the West which has taken a tough stand. It will be suicidal for her to change her anti-Sri Lankan stance in mid-stream.

The latest IPS report which highlighted the fate of Kofi Annan for opposing US is relevant to anyone holding key positions at the UN. The UN-based IPS said: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-When the administration of President George W. Bush launched a military attack on Iraq in March 2003, it was nearly 18 months before Kofi Annan, then-U.N. secretary-general, described the invasion as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-illegalƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and in ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-violation of the U.N. charterƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ because the United States did not have Security Council authorisation.

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-But Annan paid a heavy political price for his words, recounts James A. Paul, who has closely monitored the United Nations for nearly 19 years as executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum. The Bush administration was so furious that Annan soon came under attack and virtually his entire senior team were driven out of their posts by U.S. pressure, he said.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

These considerations would weigh heavily in the minds of the UN bosses.

Sri Lankans will have to keep their fingers crossed till Ms. PillayƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s report comes out to assess how far she would go to balance her stance with the new realities that is changing Sri Lanka, slowly but surely, to a new future.