UN launches investigation into war crimes in Sri Lanka

Giving Saudi Arabia a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was a stroke of genius by the world body to allow Saudis to participate in helping shape the future on how governments treat their citizens.
Saudis are well aware of the undue criticism our country endured last month over human rights. But the criticism alone is not enough to deny Saudi Arabia a seat at the council. As US President Barack Obama pointed out a few years ago, developing countries must “work from within to reform it.”
The United Nations is worthy of the contempt displayed by the Arab and Muslim communities for its weak-kneed handling of the Syrian crisis, it’s inability to stem the tide of violence against Christians in Egypt and Palestinians by Israelis, and its unforgivable silence on the plight of oppressed Muslims in Myanmar. Just as Saudi Arabia was right to reject a seat at the UN Security Council because of the flagrant disregard by the United States and Russia to deal with Syria, it was right to accept the UNHRC seat because it can be more effective.
The Security Council with its five permanent members — the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China — wielding veto power in effect paralyzes the council from any meaningful contributions toward peace in the Middle East. There could be no role for Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has a better chance of becoming a meaningful contributor on a global scale by learning how to deal with human rights violations on the council in which no country has veto power.
It is not unexpected that human rights groups oppose Saudi Arabia’s appointment, but it is shortsighted.
Europe is witnessing an alarming rise in right-wing xenophobic political parties with an anti-immigrant agenda in the name of cultural unity. France banned the hijab from its public school system in 2004 and the niqab from public places in 2010. Muslims account for 7 percent of the population. Yet France’s bans on religious and cultural clothing marginalizes, not unifies, French Muslims as they go deeper underground to avoid harassment from authorities.
In French-speaking Quebec, Canada, a proposed charter would ban government employees from wearing hijabs, Sikh turbans, large crucifixes and other religious symbols in the workplace. However, in an obvious insult to the minority non-Christian citizens of Quebec, the proposed law would allow the crucifix adorning Quebec’s National Assembly wall to remain.
The rise of the anti-immigrant National Front in France, the British National Party and English Defense League in the United Kingdom and the surging popularity of the anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders demonstrate the need to bring more levelheaded voices to government.
Saudi Arabia’s presence on the Human Rights Council will not “warp the basic definition of human rights” as some critics alleged. How can it when it is only one of 47 members? But our country can help Western members of the council understand and define what blasphemy is and how a balance between free speech and sensitivity to other religions and cultures can be achieved. It can also help counter the alarmist nature of anti-immigrant groups.
A casual look at YouTube videos of Saudis beating their workers is evidence enough that we have a long road to hoe. Yet the United States, the United Kingdom and France among other Western nations can no longer claim the high road in our post-Iraq invasion world. And the selective nature of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to condemn some countries but not others pretty much puts all members of the UN Human Rights Council on equal footing.

Email: sabria_j@hotmail.com

India’s neighbors are not necessarily its friends. They can hardly be called India’s allies. In regional and international forums, more often than not, they are ranged against one another. History, geography, religion, geopolitics, uneven development, competing ambitions and much else account for this state of affairs.
As a result, bilateral relations have their ups and downs and can be warm or chilly, euphoric or troubling. Even so, over the decades, the south Asian countries have learned to live and let live, regardless of the problems at home and across their respective borders.
The striving is to maintain friendly relations, a climate conducive for talks on matters of mutual interest and to prevent any situation from reaching breaking point. However, Tamil Nadu’s political parties, despite being an integral part of coalition governments at the Center for long years now, do not seem to have grasped this elementary aspect of diplomacy.
The Kazhagams — Jayalalithaa’s AIADMK, Karunanidhi’s DMK and Vaiko’s MDMK — do their best to vitiate India’s relations with Sri Lanka. The sideshows staged by these parties against India-Sri Lanka cooperation and against dignitaries (and ordinary citizens) from the island republic would be handy to illustrate a tract on “How to lose friends and alienate people.”
It is bad enough that New Delhi is not good at making friends of India’s neighbors. It is worse when the DMK and AIADMK push their sectarian agenda in external affairs and foment hostility to cultivate ill will.
Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Sept. 19-22 visit was yet another occasion for the Kazhagams to put up their predictable ‘tamasha’ (spectacle) of protests — in the name of championing the rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The front line performer this time was MDMK General-Secretary Vaiko.
President Rajapaksa, who laid the stone for a University of Buddhist and Indic Studies in Sanchi, held wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi. Doubtless, devolution of powers to create conditions for Sri Lanka’s Tamils “to live with dignity and respect,” elections in the Tamil-dominated Northern Province and the political plight of Tamils after the LTTE’s defeat in May 2009 were discussed between Singh and Rajapaksa.
A Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and Indian fishermen being attacked by Sri Lankan Navy were among the items on the agenda of the two leaders, who also met without their aides.
The significance of the meeting goes beyond the issues discussed because, one, it was the first meeting between the two heads of government after India voted against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in March this year. Two, this was the first meeting to deal with a range of substantive issues after June 2010. Three, Sri Lanka’s human rights record comes up for review at the end of this year. Four, New Delhi is keen to address the unrest among Tamils by pressing for their political rights. (In contrast, the Kazhagams appear to be interested in whipping up sentiment solely for political mileage in Tamil Nadu).
New Delhi has to make amends for the blunder of voting with the US against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC. Whereas the DMK and AIADMK keep targeting Sri Lanka as part of their petty one-upmanship games against each other. Their posturing has provoked attacks on innocent Sri Lankan pilgrims visiting Tamil Nadu. AIADMK chief minister Jayalalithaa objected to Sri Lankan defense personnel being trained in military institutions in India. Karunanidhi sought to outdo Jayalalithaa by saying that Sri Lanka cannot be considered “friendly” — because it allows China to execute defense projects in Jaffna.
It may not occur to the DMK and AIADMK that their posturing may be driving Sri Lanka (away from India) into the arms of China. If these parties persist in their unfriendly campaign, Sri Lanka may be forced to not only hand over more projects to China, or even Pakistan, but even start sending their defense personnel to these countries for training. Then the fat would be truly in the fire.
Sri Lanka is in a zone of Indian influence and is of enormous strategic value. India is Sri Lanka’s preferred partner and the one country from which it would like all help. Instead of creating conditions that make Colombo approach Beijing or Islamabad, it is high time the national parties made the DMK and AIADMK see strategic sense.
These two regional parties are not being just perverse. They are being irresponsible and hurting India’s strategic interests. One would have expected that with stints at the Center, they would acquire an understanding of India’s larger national interest, strategic stakes and global role. Far from that, as their role and power expands at the Center, the Kazhagams’ worldview seems to be shrinking into even narrower confines.
n IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis