The UNO the forum of Member States decided on contested issues that may have political consequences, in committees and then put them to the General Assembly for a vote. It was therefore at the end the Member States who together as equals who decided on a disputed issue. No committee could on its own take a decision without referring it to the General Assemble through its Executive Committee.
The UNO did not take any decision unilaterally on internal matters of a Sovereign Member State. Now the situation of the UNO is being changed the more powerful Member State taking decisive decisions out side the UNO, and its Security council in Separate Committees and Commissions, without their decisions endorsed by the UN General Assembly.
UN Human Rights Council has become a second UNO taking decisions concerning internal matters of a Member State with the representatives of only 47 Members States from a total of 194 UN Member Sates.
The resolution against Sri Lanka had been sponsored by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navineetham Pillay as it has been said in its introduction to the Council by the Permanent Delegate for USA Ms.Eileen Denahoe “The resolution relied upon the detailed report of the High Commissioner Navi Pillay….”
For the purpose of the resolution the UNHRC Navineetham Pillay had resorted to questionable documents and evidence, such as the report of the Panel appointed by the Secretary General of the UNO Ban Ki Moon which was only to advice him on the back ground to the elimination of terrorists in Sri Lanka. At the beginning it remained an unpublished “personal” document to the Secretary General.
The Panel itself had failed to be completely convinced of its own findings and handled laboriously the doubtful material, “The panel found that even two years after the end of the civil war there were no accurate, reliable figures for the number of civilian deaths during the final months of the civil war.This was caused by lack of accurate figures for the number of civilians and Tamil Tigers in the conflict area, and the number of who emerged from the conflict area; and the burial of dead bodies without deaths being registered.
A UN document estimated that 7,721 civilians were killed between August 2008 and 13 May 2009. The panel found that this figure was probably too low because it only included deaths recorded by UN observers whereas many deaths may not have been observed, and because the figures only go up to 13 May 2009 whereas the number of deaths would have increased sharply after this date to the intensifying of shelling. Many civilians were left where they died, their deaths never registered and their bodies never brought to hospital or buried. The panel concluded that the number of civilian deaths "could easily be several times" than in the UN document.”
This is the report on which the USA found it “noble” to present a resolution against Sri Lanka .
That was not all, the UN HRCouncil in Geneva was turned into a big circus during the 22nd Session. It allowed persons who have no connection to the UNSystem to provide evidently false documents blatantly accusing Sri Lanka. They presented fake documents, photos and films produced by the infamous UK Channel 4- which when there is no acceptable evidence does not hesitate to collect old photos and copy extracts from video to fit them into a video footage and present it as “true” evidence of atrocities committed by the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka. The “gullible” and vengeance seekers jumped at them and granted permission for their display during the sessions of the UN HRCouncil.
A photo of the presumed 12 year old son of the terrorist leader with marks on the body which looked like bullet marks without any sign of blood around the wounds, was publicised to coincide with the 22 session of the UNHRCouncil . If it was a real photo of an atrocity committed by the Sri Lanka
Armed Forces, why was it produced just during the 22nd Session of the UNHRCouncil ? Why was it not produced before at the 19 session of the UNHRCouncil for instances ?
Then of course there were the NGOs and the Human rights Watch allowed to speak on the resolution. Is this the normal procedure UNO should follow in its forums to settle complaints against a Country and settle disputes according to its Charter ?
The US Resolution was a big farce, firstly because USA is with bloodied hands of violation of human rights every where in the world it had intervened to make political settlements. Secondly, the resolution it passed, with which it now threatens Sri Lanka to implement it under threat of sanctions against Sri Lanka is not acceptable, as it was not passed with an overall majority of the delegates at the 22nd Session of the UNHR Council.
There were only 25 out of 47 votes in favour of the US Resolution. Of the 25 States Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Moldova, Romania, and Switzerland are all US allies of the EU its “yes men”.
They do not go further than the face value of a USA’s hasty decisions, as it was when America declared war against Iraq for having “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, which they never found but instead, killed millions of men, women and children and left Iraq ruined without even fresh water to drink. And now the poor Iraqis are left to live in utter misery. USA has finished with Iraq and will not come back to reconstruct Iraq which they demolished into rubble.
The others who voted for the resolution of USA had their own reasons. India for instance is still to be accused for its violation of human rights and atrocities committed against the population in Kashmir, and its continuing violation of the human rights of the Dalits. Accusing Sri Lanka and voting for the US resolution is to protect itself from a US resolution against its “black » deeds in Kashmir, more than giving into rabble rousers in the South.
Libya has a government setup by France , and America. Therefore Libya’s allegiance is for them as their puppet government. Korea had been with America as a result of its division after World War II, and North became a Communist State. South Korea has still not found an independent voice. Argentina , Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, and Guatemala, in South America are dependent on USA. Sierra Leone, Benin and Ivory Coast are West African countries maintaining relations with America. They are all those who backed the American resolution against Sri Lanka.
Japan abstained from voting, perhaps Japan is psychologically in fear of a another Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Therefore it would not go directly against the country that did the greatest damage to its people and the country. But Japan nevertheless disapproved the US resolution against Sri Lanka without being a party to it and remained uncommitted.
So was Malaysia with a 7 percent of an Indian population speaking Tamil is seeking to keep the Tamil voice silent by abstaining to support the US Resolution without directly voting for it or against it. On the other hand Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Burkina Faso also found its voice to show their disagreement with the US resolution by abstaining to vote.
But the Independent generous, fearless states willing to stand up against injustice and hypocrisy : Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Maldives ,Mauritania, Pakistan , Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Philippines, Thailand, Uganda, and Venezuela said “No” to the most disruptive, inelegant US resolution against Sri Lanka, which once again confirms US State Departments deplorable attitude of disdain for the developing countries.
In this we see India breaking away from its Asian Colleagues to stand with the to-day’s aggressor of developing Nations. The Middle Eastern States have not failed to stand by us. Even Uganda and Congo from Africa supported us. That really shows that the USA which now comes out with its usual threats of sanctions is not supported by free thinking people of the world.
It is a pity America wants to stand as the “Goliath” trying to dictate terms to the world which will surely finish by finding a “David” to challenge its might. Sri Lanka can do with out America. When America got just, 25 votes to its most reactionary resolution, while 22 countries either by voting NO by abstaining, or by not being present showed their disregard to America which tries to show it is clean when it is splattered with the blood of innocents all over.
America cannot be triumphant with having passed its resolution against Sri Lanka only with THREE votes more than those who said No, abstained from voting, or ignored the resolution all together.