Sri Lanka government had to face strong separatist and militant groups for several years, who were fighting bloody war demanding separate state for Tamils. In such condition, Sri Lanka government had no alternative other than fighting with back to wall to protect it’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
by N.S.Venkataraman
U N Human Rights Council has thought it fit to pass a resolution by majority vote against Sri Lanka for what the resolution termed as human rights violation. While reading the resolution, it is necessary to keep in view that it is not a unanimous resolution but only a resolution by majority votes.
After passing this resolution, one is not sure as to how the U N Human Rights Council would act against Sri Lanka and whether it would go into silence thinking that it has done it’s “job”.
It is well known by past experience that UNO and U N Human Rights Council would behave like a toothless tiger in the case of dealing with economically rich and militarily strong countries. Only in the case of weak and developing countries , Human Rights Council will act with “ courage of conviction”
Sri Lanka government had to face strong separatist and militant groups for several years, who were fighting bloody war demanding separate state for Tamils. In such condition, Sri Lanka government had no alternative other than fighting with back to wall to protect it’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Every country in the world would have reacted in the same way and have been reacting in the same way in similar situation , as Sri Lanka government did.
Sri Lanka government suffered enormously due to the bloody war and the separatist militant groups were ruthless and have killed not only several Sri Lankans and Sri Lanka military personnel but also several Tamils in northern Sri Lanka, who refused to toe the line of the militants. There were several factions in the militant groups and one faction fought with another faction and several Tamils were killed in the process.
For several years, Sri Lanka government could not match it’s military strength with that of the strongly armed militant groups and it was a losing war for several years. Finally, when Sri Lanka government could make it’s military strong and fought the war and successfully defeated the militants , there were casualities of hundreds of people on both the sides.
It is a fact that several countries who voted for the resolution against Sri Lanka government passed by U N Human Rights Commission ,provided sort of support to the militants on their soil by allowing them to carry on their activities .
These countries behaved in such a way ,clearly knowing that the accommodation that they provided to the militant groups would harm the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
No doubt, the human rights violation happened during the civil war and it was inevitable in a war like situation and both Sri Lanka government and militants were responsible for this.
It is shocking that UN Human Rights commission has not meaningfully taken note of the human rights violation by the militant groups but has only condemned the Sri Lanka government. Is it not a partisan and prejudiced view, unbecoming of United Nations Organisation?
The countries which voted for the resolution are mostly the so called democracies of western countries, who habitually only take note of the human rights violation in other countries and not in their own.
These days, very frequently, we hear about US police shooting down mercilessly those who indulge in terrorist like activities . In the same way, European countries such as France and others also ask the police to shoot down those indulging in terrorism. This is as it should be. But, why these countries condemn Sri Lanka government for acting in the same way to fight against the terrorists and violent prone separatists?
Several other countries in Africa as well as China and Russia also kill the protestors mercilessly in the name of preserving the peace and public order.
The countries criticizing Sri Lanka for “human rights violation” is like pot calling the kettle black.
Certainly, any discerning and neutral observer would be justified in terming the resolution passed by U N Human Rights Council against Sri Lanka as unwarranted and partisan .
One only hopes that in future ,the UN Human Rights Council would gain greater wisdom, so that it can view such “human rights violation” in a holistic manner and see the unavoidable reasons for it in proper perspective and without pre conceived view.
Post a Comment