UN Human Rights Council Praises Sri Lanka, Condemns Tamil Tigers

(UPDATED BELOW)

The UN Human Rights Council held a special session on Sri Lanka, and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an independent investigation into possible war crimes committed by both sides during Sri Lanka's civil war. As Mark Leon Goldberg pointed out on UN Dispatch, "For that to happen, however, a simple majority of the 47 member council would have to approve. Unlike the security council, no country has a veto over this process. There is a lot riding on this vote. Both for the people of Sri Lanka and for the Human Rights Council itself."

So, in all, this meeting is an important test of the Human Rights Council. A few weeks ago it proved able to authorize an investigation of alleged human rights abuses in Gaza committed by Israel and Hamas during Operation Caste Lead. Should the council vote against action on Sri Lanka it opens itself to familiar accusations that there are double standards when it comes to Israel--which is a charge that may become more resonant should member states maintain that the situation in Sri Lanka is a wholly internal matter undeserving of the attention of the Human Rights Council.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. Of the 47 members of the council, 29 voted for a resolution that called the conflict a "domestic" matter.

(More on criticism of the UN Human Rights Council.)

UPDATE: The UN Watch blog has a detailed chronology of the session. (The link hasn't been working so I'm posting the whole thing here.)

At the close of today’s special session to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka proposed an updated revised text of its self-congratulatory resolution. Though it incorporated some of the non-contentious proposals of the Swiss-EU draft, the resolution failed on a number of accounts.

The EU responded by proposing amendments that would express grave concern at the situation, call for the respect of international law, call on Sri Lanka to ensure “full, rapid and unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance,” and demand accountability and follow-up to the situation in Sri Lanka.

Cuba then took the floor to call for a “No-action” motion to prevent debate on the amendments. This motion is based on rule 117 of the General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which states that “A representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion.”

The ensuing vote on this motion passed with 22 in favor, 17 against, and 7 abstaining (Jordan did not vote). Voting no were the 6 EU members, along with Argentina, Bosnia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland. Abstaining were Azerbaijan, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, Senegal, Ukraine, and Zambia.

Switzerland then called for a vote on Sri Lanka’s text, which passed with 29 in favor (including Brazil and Uruguay), 12 against (the EU, Bosnia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Switzerland), and 6 abstaining (Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, South Korea, and Ukraine).

Just before the final vote, Sri Lanka made a shocking dig at the EU. It happened after Germany’s speech on behalf of the European Union when there was a problem with the speaker system. It was soon discovered that Germany had forgotten to turn off its microphone so the President of the Human Rights Council told Germany to do so. When the ambassador of Sri Lanka took the floor, he arrogantly said, “My headphones must have malfunctioned. For a moment I thought I heard the president tell Germany to turn off its megaphone, not its microphone.”