How to burn bridges and alienate neighbours

Twenty-four countries voted for the motion against Sri Lanka and there were 23 against it including abstentions. India’s vote against Colombo at the United Nation’s Human Rights Commission was decisive.

On Wednesday, we were told we are ‘inclined’ to vote for the US-backed resolution that calls upon Colombo to better investigate its war crimes. On Wednesday evening, we were told that since the prime minister had received only three paragraphs of the proposed text, we should not rush to a judgment. Votes in, we are now called to decide whether we voted under US pressure or to placate the DMK.

Doesn’t matter where the pressure came from, but what have we gained for India? Our politicians must think we are stupid as a people. As a journalist, I reported widely on the UN and its activities for over a decade, including covering the UNHRC. I find it very difficult to believe we had not seen a complete draft text some 12 hours before it was voted upon. Our pundits said they were waiting for the final text from Washington. The vote was in early on Thursday and given the time difference between Geneva and the East Coast, Washington was just waking up if not asleep during the event. If our assistance was sought on a matter as sensitive as this one where thousands were killed and we have lost a prime minister, we should have sought and secured the complete rolling text. Better still, we should have floated our own text keeping in mind our self interest. Having done neither, what will we do next?

Resolutions do not happen overnight. It is difficult to imagine that India would not have been consulted early enough. Among the countries we voted with are some with whom we have excellent diplomatic ties. Are we to believe that we were not part of the process? If we cannot talk to our friends in the international community as we claim, what does it show?

We are now trying to cushion our landing behind a dozen words we ‘successfully’ inserted in the text inviting the UN’s top human rights body to concur with Colombo before taking any action. This is laughable — UN observers don’t walk into countries disguised. Worse still, we are going around saying the resolution was taken up under an agenda item that is not very bad. The very fact that there is a resolution against a country is bad news.

We say we are an emerging global power. That, at the very least, would mean that our foreign, trade and defence policies speak with one voice. If we want to play with global rules, including their inconsistencies, we have to promote our own rules too. What are they?

For the past fortnight, our leaders have been speaking in several tongues. One said Sri Lankans are our blood brothers and we cannot let them down. Another made a racist comment saying we should vote with the US as we are talking about violations in our neighbourhood and not some African country. Yet another said the impact of the resolution will be mild since there is no condemnation and the text is non-binding.

Most, if not all, UN resolutions are non-binding. The UN and its bilateral agencies are debating societies at best. So, does it mean the resolution against Sri Lanka is unimportant? The contrary is true. Such moves point to trends; they are global signals and the sticks with which to beat countries selectively, suggesting it is an agenda and not a search for justice. India is best placed to know just how damaging these signals can be. Ask any diplomat who has worked to keep the Kashmir issue out of the UNHRC. I covered one such event when then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee led the Indian delegation when we were close to getting a resolution against us on Kashmir. Politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats, NGOs, journalists, et al were mobilised to keep the K-word from entering any document. It appeared as if the Line of Control had moved to Geneva. India defended itself forcefully and won, underlining the fact that Kashmir was an internal issue for us and we did not need unsolicited international advice and interference. Agree or disagree, it showed that we were a self-respecting nation able to withstand and negotiate international pressure without being pushed around.

In the current case, to butter our toast on both sides, we have also resorted to semantic jugglery saying the resolution is coming up under an article that is not very offensive. The very fact that there is a resolution is bad news, however kindly the UN body invites itself to invite Sri Lanka to investigate its human rights violations.

Earlier this month, UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Sekaggya told the UNHRC about AFSPA and its impact. She made a spirited argument for scrapping AFSPA and also sought immediate attention of the international body towards Irom Sharmila’s 11-year struggle. We will find out who our friends are when our time comes to defend our human rights record. Make no mistake — that time will come.

The writer is a former journalist