African Countries and the UNHRC Resolution on Sri Lanka

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution on Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka on March 27, 2014. The resolution mandated, among other things, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to: a) monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to continue to assess progress on relevant national processes; b) to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders. Twenty-three member countries, out of the total 47 members of the UNHRC, voted for the resolution co-sponsored by 41 countries under the leadership of the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). Twelve members abstained and an equal number voted against the resolution.

It is interesting to see how the African countries voted on this resolution. The Sri Lankan government had launched a massive military operation against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the primarily Tamil inhabited northern part of the country. According to a UN report, about 40,000 people were estimated to have been killed in the final phase of the military operations.1 Such incidents have been reported in many African countries in the past. Several cases against African countries are still pending in international human rights institutions. The African countries, in general, find themselves to be victims of Western discrimination against them under the pretext of human rights violations.

Among the African countries voting on the resolution, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone voted for the motion. Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, Namibia, Morocco and South Africa abstained while Algeria, Congo, Kenya and Maldives voted against the resolution. Given the size of the two African countries that voted for the resolution, it is interesting to note that the relatively larger African countries in terms of area and economy did not go against Sri Lanka. Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone are small countries dependent on the Western and the UN aid. They can hardly afford going against them. The other reason for their ‘yes’ vote can be their recent experience of large scale internal violence and human rights violations which they, after attaining relative normalcy, want to fight against. Sierra Leone felt that its experience:

…highlighted the importance of addressing accountability and reconciliation was essential for the country (Sri Lanka) to rebuild itself. In the absence of a domestic credible investigation and an apparent lack of political will by the Government, an international mechanism was needed.2

South Africa explained that it had abstained because it wants to encourage Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Although it chose to abstain from voting for the resolution, it urged Sri Lanka to speedily agree on a process allowing for a meaningful political mechanism that brings about a constitution acceptable to all Sri Lankans. Morocco, avoiding any extreme step, expressed concerns about humanitarian law, land rights, and victims. It encouraged Sri Lanka to pursue its dialogue with the High Commissioner and to consider offers for technical assistance. It also appreciated Sri Lanka for the restoration of civil administration and conduction of elections in its affected northern province. Namibia said that “the international community should assist Sri Lanka in her continued efforts to overcome difficulties to pursue the policy of national reconciliation, rehabilitation, and resettlement of those who were affected by the conflict, as well as the reconstruction of the country”.3

Maldives explained its negative vote by citing the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. It felt that Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the UN was quite constructive and appreciable. It also warned against any initiative by the international community against Sri Lanka that may hinder reconciliation. Algeria said that the Sri Lankan government’s efforts for reconciliation have ended a destructive conflict and that efforts had been made to ensure the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. However, despite its vote against the resolution, Algeria advised Sri Lanka not to forget the importance of dialogue and reparations.

Some other African countries who participated in the discussions were Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Nigeria. None of them was openly for the resolution but some of them were definitely against. Both Sudan and Zimbabwe felt that an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate alleged violations in Sri Lanka would mean exceeding the mandate of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.4 Most of the non-member African countries were of the opinion that Sri Lanka has commendably done well towards reconciliation, although more efforts are required to be made domestically to achieve it.

An analysis of the position taken by the African countries within and outside the UNHCR reveals the shades of opinion about human rights issues and the manner in which they are handled by the international community and institutions. The relatively larger African countries have tried to balance between the West and the Rest, as powerful UNHRC member countries like China, Russia and also politically important member countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, UAE, Cuba and Vietnam were against the resolution. The presence of Algeria, Congo, Kenya and Maldives in the ‘no’ camp reflects their deep concerns regarding external interference in the human rights issues of a sovereign country. At least two of these countries have also been recently accused of having bad human rights records by the international community and a number of cases in the International Criminal Court (ICC) are still pending. The internationally most contentious human rights trial case in the ICC is against Uhuru Kenyatta, the current president of Kenya. It was obvious for Kenya to vote against the resolution reasserting its position of non-interference in domestic affairs of sovereign states and raising voice against victimisation of Africa in the name of human rights.

The list of all the UNHRC member countries who voted ‘yes’ largely consists of countries needing Western ‘friendship’, with the exception of Brazil that has too good a relationship with Sri Lanka to jeopardise by voting in favour of the resolution. The full list of abstentions is remarkable and includes Ethiopia, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, India and Philippines – all countries that need to maintain a balance between the West and the Rest to ensure stability for their sustainable growth and security. The most important is the third list of all the ‘no’ votaries in the Council, pooling countries with allegedly poor human rights records and the non-Western powers like China and Russia who are challenging the West on several fronts. The presence of two powerful permanent members of the UN Security Council and militarily and economically strong powers, who have generally good relations with the African states, in the ‘no’ camp was also one of the reasons for the African countries not rallying into the Western camp on the matter of the Sri Lankan resolution. Due to the correlated factors of good China-Sri Lanka relations ;5 the efforts of the African countries to develop good relations with China; and the Sri Lankan endeavour to develop friendly relations with the African countries in the Indian Ocean and Eastern Africa; the African countries with moderate human rights records abstained within the UNHCR.6 Those with a poor record of the same, according to the UN, voted against the resolution.

The rationale and perceptions of the countries varied according to their own interests, domestic considerations and understanding of the current world affairs. China and Russia were also important factors influencing the vote of the African countries. The vote reflected a geopolitical contest wherein the West still has considerable influence and the Chinese influence is on the rise. The discussion and the voting pattern of the African countries also revealed their deep sense of resentment at the West for using the issue of human rights as an excuse against them.

• 1. “UN approves Sri Lanka war crimes inquiry”, Al Jazeera, March 27, 2014, at http://www.aljazeera.com/news/
  southasia/2014/03/un-approves-sri-lanka-war-crimes-inquiry-201432773150513279.html
• 2. “Human Rights Council discusses reports on Mali, Central African Republic and Sri Lanka”, The United Nations Office at Geneva, March 26, 2014, at http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/
  %28httpNewsByYear_en%29/D70FA14776A83C8AC1257CA70041023B?OpenDocument
• 3. “Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America express their support to Sri Lanka’s efforts at achieving national Reconciliation”, Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the UN (Geneva), March 30, 2014, at http://
  www.lankamission.org/index.php/human-rights-humanitarian-affairs/867-cou…
• 4. “Human Rights Council discusses reports on Mali, Central African Republic and Sri Lanka”, The United
  Nations Office at Geneva, March 26, 2014, at http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/
  %28httpNewsByYear_en%29/D70FA14776A83C8AC1257CA70041023B?OpenDocument
• 5. Note: China had provided arms to the Sri Lankan government to fight against the LTTE. The Chinese have also invested hugely in the development of infrastructure in Sri Lanka
• 6. Note: These factors tend to pull all the involved actors to come closer.