Human Rights Council should
refuse to endorse any deliberate violence against civilians: Prof. Richard
Falk.
Special Rapporteur endorses Ambassador Jayatilleka's intervention
The Permanent Mission of
Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva
18th June 2008
Prof. Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967,
alluding in his concluding remarks, to an intervention made by Dr. Jayatilleke
during the 8th Session of the Human Rights Council held on 16 June 2008
in Geneva said:
"It is very important, it seems to me, for the Human
Rights Council, as the Representative of Sri Lanka reminded us, to refuse
to endorse any deliberate violence against civilians. That seems to
be to me an unconditional element in the Geneva Conventions and we should
take this opportunity to see that it is applied in a most effective
way".
During one of two interventions, Dr. Jayatilleke said
that "While it is not possible to equate the oppressor and the
oppressed, while it is morally wrong to be neutral between the occupier
and the occupied, it is also true that no cause, however just, can warrant
the witting, deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, on whichever
side."
Further, Dr. Jayatilleke pointed out that "Non state
actors not only have the luxury of criticizing us in the Council, but
they have to be held accountable for their conduct in international
law." He also reminded the gathering that Sri Lanka which faces
"a far more ferocious threat than the State of Israel" does
"not believe in a policy of the collective criminalization of any
community or any part of the territory of Sri Lanka."
Dr. Jayatilleke also congratulated Prof. Falk, an Albert
G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University
and a Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies
at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who is also the author
of numerous books, on his assuming the Special Rapporteurship.
Given below are the full texts of the two interventions
made by the Ambassador prior to Professor Falk's concluding remarks:
First intervention
"Thank you Mr. President, Madame High-Commissioner,
Sri Lanka wishes to congratulate Professor Richard Falk for his assumption
of the Special Rapporteurship. We are delighted that Professor Falk
is the new holder of this mandate because we consider him one of the
world's most outstanding scholars. We are familiar with his work on
World Order modeling and we also recognize that far from being a one
sided critic of Israel, Professor Falk reflects one of the greatest
strands of the Jewish scholarly tradition, that of holding a moral mirror
up before the Jewish community. This is very clear in the tradition
of the Prophets of the Old Testament.
Now, Professor Falk has presented us with a moral argument for the modification
of the mandate. Sri Lanka is in no position at this moment to make a
definitive comment on it, but I think, it has to be taken with great
seriousness, great seriousness. While it is not possible to equate the
oppressor and the oppressed, while it is morally wrong to be neutral
between the occupier and the occupied, it is also true that no cause,
however just, can warrant the witting, deliberate targeting of innocent
civilians, on whichever side. No cause.
The struggles of the people of China, of Vietnam, of Cuba, have shown
that it is perfectly possible to fight against the greatest oppression
while eschewing the targeting of civilians. The targeting of civilians
weakens the moral case of the oppressed and must not be countenanced.
Sri Lanka has been victim of one sidedness where the violence of non
state actors in specious causes, causes much less justifiable than those
of the Middle East have visited upon us. Therefore, we urge in all seriousness,
that the moral stature of Professor Falk be taken into account in assessing
the plea that he has made here today. Non state actors not only have
the luxury of criticizing us in the Council, but they have to be held
accountable for their conduct in the international law. Therefore, I
urge that Professor Falk's suggestion be regarded with the philosophical
seriousness that he deserves. Thank you."
Second Intervention
"Thank you Mr. President,
With the collapse of colonialism and apartheid, the Israeli occupation
of the Palestinian territories remains as the longest standing moral
outrage in international affairs. I reiterate that we refer to the Israeli
occupation, not the existence of the State of Israel, which Sri Lanka
considers to be legitimate and desirable.
Mr. President, no security requirement of an existing state can justify
the position of collective punishment. The lack of fuel and medication
in the hospitals of Gaza and the ensuing deaths and malnutrition of
children, of infants, the recent affair about the inability of Fulbright
scholarship winners to go to the United States to pursue their studies,
all of these are examples of the collective punishment inflicted on
the people of Gaza.
Mr. President, we also reject the systematic distortion of facts that
accompany the Israeli occupation. It is said that Gaza has an illegitimate
government because it seized power violently. But it is forgotten that
Gaza has an administration that, prior to that, was elected in a free
vote and that sanctions were imposed subsequent to that election and
before the seizure of power. It is said that the Palestinian authority
must crack down on extremism. But what is forgotten is the undermining
of the moderates such as President Arafat and his fate being surrounded
by Israeli tanks in Ramallah. How can the Palestinian authority or the
so-called moderates crack down on so-called extremists when settlements
are being built, precisely in the West Bank?
Mr. President, we in Sri Lanka face a far more ferocious threat than
the State of Israel. But we do not believe in a policy of the collective
criminalization of any community or any part of the territory of Sri
Lanka. That is why, I think, we have the moral and ethical authority
to speak on this subject.
Mr. President, no country's security, legitimate as it is, is served
by the moral erosion that accompanies the wholesale criminalization
of other peoples, other nations, other communities. The moral standing
of Israel, and therefore, in the long term, the viability and security
of the State of Israel which Sri Lanka considers to be legitimate objectives,
are undermined by its practices. This not only is an affront but is
also counterproductive.
We are admirers of the Israeli democracy and the achievements of the
Israeli people. We are also friends of the State of Israel. But we are
friends and long-standing supporters of the people of Palestine. The
policy of Sri Lanka, Mr. President, was best summed-up by the President
of Sri Lanka who has remained for decades the President of the Palestine
Solidarity Committee in Sri Lanka, and he reiterated our commitment
to the Palestinian cause in his recent joint communication with the
President of Iran. But the Sri Lankan President has always reiterated,
most recently on his visit to London, that there is no such thing as
good terrorism and bad terrorism, that there is no justification however
just the cause, for acts of terrorism which target the innocent. Therefore,
we call upon all sides to the conflict, to eschew the targeting of civilians
in the pursuit of their legitimate interests.
Thank you."
Prof. Richard Falk
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian
territories occupied since 1967.
"… in response to comments that have been made, it is very
important it seems to me, for the Human Rights Council, as the Representative
of Sri Lanka reminded us, to refuse to endorse any deliberate violence
against civilians. That seems to be to me an unconditional element in
the Geneva Conventions and we should take this opportunity to see that
it is applied in a most effective way. At the same time, that doesn't
mean that one overlooks the unequal responsibility, and one doesn't
overlook the unequal burden on the two peoples involved here. As I tried
to emphasize, what the changing of the mandate will enable is to allow
us to see the asymmetries of occupation in a clear method that will
be more persuasive, and in the end, more effective in relation to the
principle goals of the Human Rights Council. Thank you."
----------------------
Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International
Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in
Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. His most recent book, The Great Terror War (2003), considers
the American response to September 11, including its relationship to
the patriotic duties of American Citizens. In 2001 he served on a three
person Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestine Territories
that was appointed by the United Nations, and previously, on the Independent
International Commission on Kosovo. He is the author or coauthor of
numerous books, including Religion and Humane Global Governance; Human
Rights Horizons; On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics;
Explorations at the Edge of Time; Revolutionaries and Functionaries;
The Promise of World Order; Indefensible Weapons; Human Rights and State
Sovereignty; A Study of Future Worlds; This Endangered Planet; coeditor
of Crimes of War. He serves as Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's
Board of Directors and as honorary vice president of the American Society
of International Law. Falk also acted as counsel to Ethiopia and Liberia
in the Southwest Africa Case before the International Court of Justice.
He received his B.S. from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania;
L.L.B. from Yale Law School; and J.S.D. from Harvard University.
|
