SRI LANKA AT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: MORE

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000108

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/04/2018
TAGS: PHUM PGOV UNHRC CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA AT THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: MORE
CRITICISM OF HIGH COMMISSIONER ARBOUR

REF: A. A) GENEVA 55

B. B) GENEVA 89

Classified By: Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor. Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Rajiva Wijesinha, General Secretary of Sri
Lanka's Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process, held
meetings in Geneva on February 1 as part of continuing GoSL
efforts to sway thinking here on Sri Lanka's human rights
situation. Meeting with Ambassador Tichenor, Wijesinha
criticized High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's
recent statement on Sri Lanka and showed no flexibility on
Arbour's effort to establish an international monitoring
mission there, while floating the idea that the U.S. could
weigh in with Arbour to be more flexible toward Colombo.
Although substantively similar, Wijesinha took a more
measured tone than that of Sri Lanka's ambassador, whose
rhetorical attacks on Arbour and OHCHR lately have only
weakened Sri Lanka's efforts to boost its image, at least in
many Western delegations. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) The Sri Lankan government has long been pursuing a
vigorous public relations campaign in an effort to forestall
Human Rights Council action -- possibly a special session or
part of the Council's March regular session -- on Sri Lanka
(ref A). In its latest attempt, it deployed Wijesinha to
Geneva, where he met on February 1 with several ambassadors
as well as with International Labor Organization Director
General Juan Somavia.

MEETING WITH THE AMBASSADOR
--------------


3. (SBU) Although Wijesinha began his meeting with Ambassador
Tichenor by saying it was aimed at explaining the termination
of Sri Lanka's cease-fire, the discussion quickly turned to
High Commissioner Arbour. Wijesinha criticized Arbour for
having issued a January 15 statement reiterating the need for
both the Government and Tamil Tigers to respect international
law. In his view, the statement wrongly equated the two
sides, thus lending implicit support to the latter.


4. (SBU) Ambassador Tichenor underscored the long history of
U.S.-Sri Lankan ties and condemned Tamil Tiger terrorist
attacks but underscored our growing concerns with the human
rights situation in the country. He urged the GoSL to
reconsider its position on an independent presence of the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in
Sri Lanka, as Arbour has been seeking since her October visit
to the country.


5. (SBU) Wijesinha said that Arbour's October visit to Sri
Lanka had been good, although the way she had handled it had
allowed the political opposition, as well as the LTTE, to use
it to political advantage. Her posture since then, leading
up to the January 15 statement, had been unhelpful, and she
was wrongly refusing to work with Sri Lanka's Human Rights
Commission. Arbour's position toward that body disregarded a
2007 UNDP report that, while acknowledging its problems, did
not condemn it and assessed that it could be improved.
Wijesinha also argued that the 2007 decision by OHCHR's
International Coordination Committee to demote the national
human rights organization was based on false information.


6. (SBU) Particularly given Arbour's questionable judgment,
which ended up strengthening the Tamil Tigers' cause, Sri
Lanka would continue to reject her calls for an independent
human rights monitoring role, Wijesinha continued. OHCHR
already had a staff member on the ground, who played an
important role by virtue of being a member of the UN human
rights team. The incumbent OHCHR staffer was particularly
good, Wijesinha said. (Note: This was a swipe at Rory
Mungoven, the previous OHCHR staffer in Sri Lanka, who now
heads OHCHR's Asia-Pacific team. Sri Lanka's ambassador had
made a similar point in a briefing to the Council last week
on OHCHR's future activities - ref B.)


7. (SBU) Wijesinha also complained that Arbour had been
intractable during a January 11 meeting with Sri Lanka's
Human Rights Minister, Mahinda Samarasinghe. Although
Samarasinghe had sought to find common ground, including
offering a non-paper on possible steps forward to resolve the
dispute over an independent OHCHR monitoring presence, Arbour
had shown no interest. Sri Lanka could not accept an
independent presence but was willing to expand its work with
OHCHR, notably on technical assistance, Wijesinha said,
adding that Arbour had also refused to acknowledged publicly
that she had engaged in a dialogue with Samarasinghe.
Wijesinha raised the possibility to the Ambassador that the

U.S. might intervene with Arbour to be more flexible.

COUNCIL ACTION ON SRI LANKA: NO DECISIONS
--------------


8. (C) We have heard no further word on possible Council
action on Sri Lanka, and our UK colleagues told us February 4
that there is little likelihood that the EU will call for a
special session in the foreseeable future. Sri Lankan
diplomats have noted that their human rights record will be
reviewed in May under the Universal Periodic Review,
implicitly suggesting that this obviates any other action for
the moment. According to a press release issued by the Sri
Lankan Mission following Wijesinha's visit, he discussed the
UPR issue in his meeting with Council President Doru Costea.
(The press release, which offered the Sri Lankan version of
what transpired at each meeting, was issued without the
notification or approval of the Missions involved --
including ours -- and this raised some ill feelings among
several of his interlocutors.)

COMMENT
--------------


9. (C) Wijesinha was critical of Arbour but did so in
measured terms. This stands in contrast to some of the more
aggressive statements we have heard from Sri Lanka's mission
here toward the High Commission, including the withering
criticism leveled at Arbour's presentation last week of her
Strategic Management Plan (ref B). Whether or not this
resonates with some NAM countries, it has certainly soured
Sri Lanka's image among many Western delegations.
TICHENOR