US RESOLUTION NOW STINKS TO HEAVEN

RESOLUTION NOW STINKS TO HEAVEN

What are the consequences of the UNHRC Resolution against Sri Lanka -- and simply put, what's next?

It's a question that's legitimately asked when some people may feel there are mixed signals coming from various quarters, after the announcement on how different member states voted on Thursday, when the fate of the Resolution was decided.

The document was adopted. 23 member states voted for it. 12 voted against it, and 12 abstained.

This means that there was a victory for the unpatriotic forces in this country that campaigned with the help of the United States and the UK and others aligned to these Western powers, to persecute the Sri Lankan government for winning a war against terrorism.

The Minister of External Affairs in the meantime has stated that the majority of member states in the UNHRC were against the US on the Resolution targeting this country.

If the Resolution was adopted against us, how could this be, the confused and the distracted may reasonably demand.

The truth is that both these positions could be correct at the same time i.e: yes, the Resolution against Sri Lanka was adopted, but no, that does not mean that the majority of member states in the UNHRC were with the Americans.

It's not the arithmetic that is important in reaching this conclusion, but the fact that the issues taken in their entirety makes that assessment inescapable.

More countries did not vote with the US than they did on the Resolution that purportedly deals with Sri Lanka, and in precise terms the countries that did not vote with Sri Lanka number 24 -- while those that did count up to 23.

However, 23 countries emphatically gave their assent to the Resolution, while only 12 emphatically rejected it, which is why the document was adopted.

But the fact that 12 more countries did not vote assertively with the US and chose to remain silent on the vote, tells a much bigger tale than the arithmetic may convey by itself.

The US is the sole superpower on earth, and used its economic clout and the defence pacts that she has signed with other nations, and the economic collaboration she has with member countries, to influence member states to vote on the basis of power bloc allegiances as opposed to the true import of the issues.

Despite all this undue big-power arm twisting, and despite the fact that the US together with the UK posed as the paragon of all moral virtue in mooting this Resolution, there were 12 countries which did not agree with the Americans, which means the inevitable conclusion has to be drawn that they were against the US position despite the Sunday church bully pulpit style sermonizing on the US side, coupled with the strong arm tactics.

Notwithstanding the math, there is just one lesson that can be drawn from this - more countries were against the US than they were with them, though unfortunately most of the delegates from these were too cowed to state their real position, despite that.

In practical terms no doubt the anti Sri Lankan forces trumped, adopted the Resolution against Sri Lanka - and would now proceed to act against this country's interests.

But yet, the actions of the UNHRC under the circumstances of the majority dissent and the Indian abstention, would mean that the UNHRC's moves against Sri Lanka would now lack moral force.

India is Sri Lanka's largest neighbour and is a regional and global giant in terms of population, size, economic potential and geo-strategic importance. Not only did the Indians abstain and not vote in favour of the Resolution, but the Indian delegation also articulated the position that the mandated investigation of Sri Lanka's war is not in keeping with UNHRC core principles, and is of a highly intrusive nature in the bargain.

Without the moral authority of Indian assent, the Resolution will now no doubt be doubly illegitimate.

No doubt the movers will push it and demand that it be implemented in full, as that has been their crass and obdurate way of doing things, but the inquisitorial nature of the campaign against Sri Lanka is now in glaring public view and is a reeking embarrassment to the persecutors in chief -- among them the US and the UK -- that are responsible for this ignominy.