Madam President,

My delegation recalls Resolution A/HRC/S-11/2 adopted at the 11^th Special Session on Assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights which recognizes that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings, and urges the international community to cooperate with the Government of Sri Lanka in its post-conflict reconstruction efforts.  

My delegation also recalls paragraph 4 of the GA Resolution 60/251 which established the HRC and importantly the principle that ‘advisory services, technical assistance and capacity building’, be ‘provided in consultation with and with the consent of member countries concerned’. 

Statement made by Mr Mohan Peiris under the thematic discussion on “Sharing of best practices and promoting technical cooperation: paving the way towards the second cycle of the universal periodic review”  

Madam President,

 We have been repeatedly reminded that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of member states to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human kind. It urges States to cooperate with Governments in that process.

The Government of Sri Lanka deeply regrets that, once again, Channel 4 chose not to share the video footage or any of the other material upon which it purports to have relied, prior to broadcast of its film ‘Sri Lanka Killing Fields: War Crimes Unpunished’ on 14^th March 2012.  This denied the Government of Sri Lanka of the rightful opportunity to address any of the concerns raised.  This appears to be a continuation of the approach adopted by Channel 4 in its broadcast last year.  It may be recalled that last year’s broadcast was severely criticised by many including the Sunday Times UK, which described the commentary to the broadcast as “intemperate and partisan”, and rightly pointed out that most of the footage which was used was unattributed and uncorroborated.  

The Government of Sri Lanka regrets Channel 4’s continuing hostile and biased editorial position with regard to its reporting on Sri Lanka.  Channel 4 chooses to focus its attention on a number of highly spurious and uncorroborated allegations and seeks, falsely, to implicate members of the Sri Lankan Government and senior military figures.

The Government of Sri Lanka has been observing a disturbing trend in the run-up to the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Many parties with vested interests have been carrying out anti-Sri Lanka propaganda in the form of discussions, reports and documentaries, with a view to exerting undue pressure on a small country which is undergoing a period of transition, following the restoration of peace, after a 30 year battle against terrorism.

These attempts are very clearly aimed at garnering support for a Resolution calling for action against Sri Lanka, tabled at the current sessions of the Council and form a larger, politically motivated mala fide campaign with a view to soliciting  unwarranted external interference and causing instability and chaos in the country thereby undermining the real gains made in the past several years.

The latest Channel 4 film on Sri Lanka dwells on four points, most of them expanded versions of what it claimed previously. Once again, actual evidence in the form of documents dating from the period concerned, indicate how selective it is. 

Channel 4, following the Darusman report, talks of bombardments on a UN camp from January 23rd on. Unlike Gordon Weiss, who mentioned the same incident but without a date, attributing information to retired Colonel Harun Khan, from the UN Secutiry Office, Channel 4 now finally mentions its purported informant, an Australian called Peter Mackay. 

There was no Peter Mackay in the list of those going on the convoy supplied to the army. Apart from Harun Khan, the only UN officer supposed to be in the convoy was a local employee called Mr Suganthan.

In an unanticipated and impromptu right of reply at the Human Rights Council, Professor Rajiva Wijesinha pointed out that Amnesty International was part of the ‘band wagon’, that is now being built up. Recalling that Sri Lanka does not usually reply within the Council to nongovernmental organizations, Professor Wijesinha, said that he believed that a special exception needed to be made for Amnesty.

Dissecting the Amnesty International Report which was launched yesterday, Professor Wijesinha revealed that the cases dealt with in the Report were from an earlier period and did not justify the hype with which it was presented, suggesting that the situation in Sri Lanka is ‘really appalling’. Drawing from an earlier example of a report by Human Rights Watch, Professor Wijesinha drew attention to the subtle inconsistencies, and exaggerations incorporated into such reports.

Referring to efforts by the Asia Pacific Centre for Human Rights Commissions and the UN system to strengthen the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission, the Professor expressed his regret that the Commission was not assisted, due to a suppression of the UN contracted report, which suggested such assistance.  

In conclusion, Professor Wijesinha affirmed that ‘the suggestion that we haven’t done anything in the past is complete nonsense’, and added that there was a need to better publicize these efforts. He ended by establishing that he hoped that the country would be able to show the Council and the world, that our approach to reconciliation, is a model.

Text of full intervention:

Taking the floor under the general debate of Item 3 (Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development), Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam affirmed that if the ‘Council is to remain credible, it must give equal attention to economic, social and cultural rights as to civil and political rights; to the collective dimension as to the individual dimension; to the international as to the national.’ She regretted that more than 25 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development and the consensus achieved, obstacles were still being placed in the way of its implementation, depriving developing countries of their right to determine the type of society in which this inalienable right can be realized.’

Following his meetings with President Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa and Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Foreign Minister of South Africa, Professor G.L. Peiris, Minister of  External Affairs, had further discussions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Pretoria, South Africa. 

Participating in these discussions were Mr. Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, with special responsibility for this subject in the African National Congress, and Mr. Roelf Meyer, former Minister of Defence and Minister of Constitutional Affairs of South Africa and Chief Negotiator with the ANC, appointed by former President F.W. de  Klerk of South Africa.  

Other officials attending the meeting included Mr. Shehan Ratnavale, Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in South Africa and Mr. Geoffrey Quinton Doidge, South Africa’s High Commissioner in Sri Lanka.  

Ministry of External Affairs 

Colombo

8^th March 2012

Amidst Sri Lanka’s active engagement within the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam, in her capacity as Chairperson-Rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on the Right to Development, presented to the Council, the Report of the Working Group. 

Drawing on the importance of the Declaration on the Right to Development, Ambassador Kunanayakam reminded the Council of the Declaration’s modernity and relevance in the context of today’s global challenges. Pointing out that she had on several occasions, affirmed the continued validity and modernity of the right to development, in the context of the economic, social, political, and ecological crisis, she further said that the situation at hand served as a reminder of the urgent need to make progress in the realization of the right to development.

The Ambassador also affirmed that the Declaration ‘advances a vision of development that is, at once, comprehensive, global, multidimensional, structural, and dynamic.’ She rightly pointed out that the Declaration provides the opportunity to achieve and maintain a sustainable development that will benefit both present and future generations. 

State delegations and Regional Groups (including the Non Aligned Movement and the African Group) took the floor during the General Debate to express appreciation and gratitude toward Ambassador Kunanayakam for her leadership and guidance through the Working Group’s deliberations.

Full Text of Statement:

In a wide ranging interview H.E. Tamara Kunanayakam, Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, explained the motivations of the West and mostly the United States for pushing a resolution against Sri Lanka: “What, in fact, are the US trying to tell us with their draft resolution? They are not saying that our LLRC report is bad. They are not saying that there is gross and systematic violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. What they are saying is that they don’t have confidence that we will implement the recommendations. […] They are judging our intentions, not the ground reality! This is unacceptable to most countries, because it gives a role to the Council that was never intended. Moreover, there is a general feeling that Sri Lanka is being punished for cooperating.”  

Ambassador Kunanayakam further stressed that: “A resolution on Sri Lanka will, many feel, be the ultimate test of the Council’s politicization. It will make it or break it.”  

Concluding on the potential outcome of the vote, Ambassador Kunanayakam said that: “We must not underestimate or overestimate our capacity! […] the battle will have to be fought to the very last minute”.  

Given below are the excerpts of the interview with Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations – Geneva 

Taking the floor during the clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on adequate Housing, Deputy Solicitor General – Mr Shavindra Fernando, presenting the Sri Lankan statement, pointed out that some information contained in the Report of the special Rapporteur, was not accurate. ‘the information provided in the Report of the Special Rapporteur is perhaps a misappreciation of legal provisions with regard to the ownership of land’ he said.    

Mr Fernando went on to clearly outline the laws and provisions governing land ownership in the country and further explained the country's personal laws, relating to the respective cultural norms. Referring to modifications to these personal laws, Mr Fernando emphasised that any such project should be the initiative of the concerned ethnic group.    

Full Text of Statement: 

Following the clustered Interactive Dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on torture and Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders,  Senior Advisor to the cabinet of Ministers, Mr Mohan Pieris took the floor, informing the Council of constitutional and legislative measures against torture, effective in Sri Lanka and further pointed out the importance of knowing the difference between true Human Rights Defenders and those who masquerade behind the ‘cloak of human rights defender’ in their execution of collateral agendas.

In conclusion Mr Pieris rightly pointed out that it was a vital necessity for the Council to take Sri Lanka into its confidence and weed out any seeds of prejudice against the country, which is well on its way to reconciliation. 

Full Text of Statement:

In a persuasive right of reply to the Statement made by U.S Under Secretary of State, Maria Otero, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador/Permanent Representative Tamara Kunanayakam warned the Human Rights Council that the hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the United States in its treatment of countries such as Sri Lanka would, if encouraged, gravely affect the credibility of the Council and undermine its legitimacy. 

She regretted that the Under Secretary had thought it fit to unilaterally develop and set forth values that would guide the workings of the Council, departing from its founding principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non selectivity. 

Reacting to the Under Secretary’s claim that the international community had to wait nearly three years for action, and insinuations that the LLRC recommendations will not be implemented unless action ‘now’ is taken by the Council, Ambassador Kunanayakam wondered at the impatience of the United States.  Only two and a half months had elapsed since the release of the LLRC report and barely three years since the end of a thirty year war against terrorism and separatism. She regretted that the significant action undertaken by the Government had been ignored, although widely recognised and commended by the international community.  

The U.S did not exercise its right of reply to Ambassador Kunanayakam’s statement.

Full Text of Statement: 

Statement made by H.E Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam,Sri Lankan Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner on her Annual Report (Agenda Item 2) 

Addressing the Human Rights Council under Agenda Item 2, H.E Ambassador Tamara Kunanayakam highlighted that a dangerous precedent was once again sought to be established by way of a debate on the recommendations of a domestic process. Referring to the High Commissioner of Human Rights’ reference to Sri Lanka, Ambassador Kunanayakam recalled that the LLRC Report reflected the emblemic parameters of rule of law strategies, which have been earnestly taken note of by the Government of Sri Lanka for implementation. Ambassador Kunanayakam further asserted that ‘What concerns us and our people is the insidious attempt to selectively target Sri Lanka that seeks to set at nought our post conflict resurgence.’   

Full text of Statement..

Madam  President,  Madam High Commissioner,  

We have taken note of the comments made by the High Commissioner  on the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and while unreservedly dissenting with the observations of the High Commissioner on its domestic process vis a vis the UN Secretary General’s Panel,  we would like to highlight,  at the expense of repetition, that the LLRC report reflects the emblematic parameters of rule of law strategies, which have been earnestly taken note of by my Government  for speedy implementation.  

A dangerous precedent is again sought to be established by way of a debate on the recommendations of a domestic process which Sri Lanka condemns as a retrogressive step that undermines the constitutional parameters of this Council.

EXTERNAL INTERVENTION WILL GRAVELY HAMPER SRI LANKAN PROCESS    -                       PROF.  PEIRIS TELLS LEADERS OF UGANDAN GOVERNMENT

External  intervention   at  this  time  is  singularly  unhelpful  and  will  indeed  inflict grave  damage  on  a  sensitive  internal  process  which  is  moving  forward,  Professor  G.L.Peiris,  Minister  of  External  Affairs,  said  in  Kampala,  Uganda,  on  Tuesday (28 February 2012) .

He  made  these  remarks  at  a  series  of  meetings  with  leaders  of  the  Ugandan  Government. Prof.  Peiris  had  meetings  in  the  Ugandan  capital  with  Mr.  Edward  Sekandi,  Vice-President  of  Uganda,  Mr.  Amama  Mbabazi,  Prime  Minister  of  Uganda,  and Mr.  Oryem  Okello,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Uganda.

Full text of letter:

Dear Colleague,

It has been brought to our attention that an e-mail dated 21^st February, purporting to have originated from the Mission of the United States to the United Nations and other International Organisations at Geneva, signed by one Miriam Shahrzard Schive has been sent to Member States of the Human Rights Council and Diplomatic Missions in Geneva. It seeks support for a resolution on Sri Lanka supposedly sponsored by the United States, that is to be presented to the Human Rights Council Sessions in March. This e-mail creates the impression that diplomatic officials of the U.S. have been in close contact with the Government of Sri Lanka, as well as this Mission, to work, “collaboratively on issues of accountability (in Sri Lanka) and the implementation of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s Report”. It goes on to express the hope that ‘the Sri Lankan Government will work with us on this Resolution’. It obliquely canvasses the position of a co-sponsorship of a Resolution and conveys a false impression that Sri Lanka is working with the United States on this Resolution.

We have to give the rural people who comprises 80% of our population the results of giant development works we have initiated in the country. It is not only an expectation but also a challenge which we are ready to take up, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said.

Addressing the 64th Independence Day celebrations at Anuradhapura this morning President said that we would be able to utilize the giant development works built by us for national development only if we can bring up a citizen equipped with modern, scientific, technical and language skills and who could be on par with anybody else in the world.  

"We would be able to exist as an independent, sovereign state only if we strengthen our economy. We have to get together and work just as we got together and worked with dedication to defeat terrorism," President added.

Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha has expressed the hope "that all those who wish Sri Lanka well, would view the LLRC report as a catalyst and continue to engage with Sri Lanka in a constructive manner, giving the Government the time and space needed to carry out what has been recommended by the LLRC". The Ambassador made this observation in the course of his response to interventions made at a ‘Sri Lanka Briefing’ convened by the ‘Friends of Sri Lanka’ of the European Parliament held on 25 January 2012 at the European Parliament.

Full Text of the statement is follows: