EU CONSIDERS CONDEMNING SRI LANKA IN HUMAN RIGHTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 002110

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR IO DAS SINGH, IO/RHS, DRL/MLA, L/HRR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/08/2007
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL PTER UNHRC CE
SUBJECT: EU CONSIDERS CONDEMNING SRI LANKA IN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL; SRI LANKA COUNTERS THE EFFORT


Classified By: Charge, a.i., Mark Storella. Reasons: 1.4 (B/D).


1. (U) This is an action cable. Action request in para 8.


2. (C) SUMMARY: The EU is considering whether to table a
resolution in the Human Rights Council condemning Sri Lanka's
recent human rights record. To avert a resolution, the Sri
Lankan Government sent its Human Rights Minister and two
other officials for a series of meetings in Geneva. Those
officials argued, including in a meeting with the Ambassador,
that Sri Lanka is cooperating with international
organizations on human rights and has improved its human
rights record, and that a Council resolution would only play
into the hands of extremists. A delegation of human rights
NGOs held parallel meetings in which they accused Colombo of
stonewalling. We understand the EU may seek out our views
shortly on a possible resolution. Para 8 requests guidance
on our position on the issue. END SUMMARY.

EU CONSIDERS CONDEMNATORY RESOLUTION
--------------


3. (SBU) With the start of the Human Rights Council's Sixth
Session on September 10 approaching, EU ambassadors in Geneva
have been actively considering whether to press for a
resolution condemning Sri Lanka for its human rights record.
Although there are divisions about details of a possible
resolution, many EU ambassadors here believe that a
resolution may be appropriate, particularly given recent
developments. That said, a UK Mission contact told us that
work is only at an early stage on the text of a possible
resolution, which would update one that the EU put forward in
last year's Council session.

A VIGOROUS RESPONSE FROM SRI LANKA
--------------


4. (SBU) While the Sri Lankan Ambassador downplayed the
prospects for an EU resolution, his government seems to have
been sufficiently concerned to dispatch Human Rights Minister
Mahinda Samarasingha, as well as Attorney General C.R. De
Silva and Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process in
Sri Lanka head Rajiva Wijsinha, to head off that eventuality.
The three made the rounds in Geneva to press their case,
including in bilateral meetings with key missions and a more
general briefing for the diplomatic community. The general
consensus was that the Sri Lankan delegation handled their
assignment skillfully, without, however, having dispelled
many of the concerns about their government's behavior.


5. (C) In a September 4 meeting with the Ambassador, the
three officials, accompanied by Sri Lanka's ambassador in
Geneva, laid out their case. They argued that Sri Lanka had
cooperated fully with international organizations and would
continue to do so. Despite reports to the contrary, UN Under
Secretary John Holmes had been fully satisfied with his trip

SIPDIS
to Sri Lanka, Samarasingha argued. Holmes regretted a
misunderstanding that appeared to result in restricting his
access to NGOs and the media; the misunderstanding resulted
because he failed to coordinate with his Sri Lankan hosts an
interview he gave during his visit, the Ambassador was told.
In the aftermath of Holmes's visit, NGO access to government
officials had improved. The "misunderstanding" over Holmes'
visit was in any case "behind us," Samarasingha said. He
added that his government had taken the initiative to invite
UN High Commission Louise Arbour for an October visit to
examine the situation on the ground, and also supported
planned visits by Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak
and Representative of the Secretary General on Internally
Displaced Persons Walter Kalin.


6. (SBU) The Sri Lankan officials said that their
government's Commission of Inquiry (CoI) had initial evidence
that the Tamil Tigers were to blame for the recent killing of
aid workers, although the investigation continued. They
argued that the government had been working hard to foster a
witness protection program. Not only would a Council
resolution condemning Sri Lanka be unfair, Samarasingha and
his colleagues argued, but it also would play into the hands
of the Tamil Tigers and other extremist forces, thus negating
the government's progress on political reconciliation.

NGOS ALSO WEIGH IN
--------------


7. (SBU) Human rights activists held parallel meetings to
press their case. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu of the Sri

Lankan NGO Centre for Policy Alternatives, accompanied by
representatives from the Geneva-based International
Commission of Jurists, argued that the Sri Lankan Government
had clearly determined that a strong offense was its best
defense in presenting the case on human rights. According to
Saravanamuttu, the prevailing climate of impunity in Sri
Lanka undermined any effort to improve the situation.
Interference by the Attorney General's office prevented the
CoI, which in any event was only empowered to consider past
cases, from conducting effective work. The lack of a witness
protection program and of redress to families, and
limitations on the Group of Eminent Persons, undermined human
rights protection in the country. The EU needed to let
Colombo know that the U.S. and India supported its efforts to
bring the Sri Lankan Government to account, we were told.
The U.S. was in a unique position to affect government
actions on human rights, the activists argued, but if it did
not push, Colombo would not respond to pressure from others.

ACTION REQUEST
--------------


8. (C) EU ambassadors have indicated that they are likely to
seek out our views on a resolution on Sri Lanka in the near
future. This could happen within the first days of the Human
Rights Council session that starts on September 10, although
the timing remains unclear. Please provide guidance on our
position on the issue.
STORELLA