Dear David,
The answer is simple. One does not get into a Minefield specially laid out for you. What if we joined the resolution and then USA refused to alter anything at the negoitiations? We would have to leave the ‘party’, and all kinds of accusations would have been thrown at us. We are guilty, we don’t want to implement the LLRC report, we are not genuine etc., etc.
DJ did the same in 2009. He refused to join that party and offer comments and alterations. He fought from outside and successfully rubbed their noses in the mud of their own minefield. I salute him. He should have been in charge this time too.
It is funny that the biggest perpetrator of Human Rights violations in the world, USA, is talking HR and accountability.
I feel sorry foe Luxmy and some others. They still seem to be supporting the other biggest HR violators we have seen recently, namely Prabhkaran and the LTTE.

I wish you understand the global realities and stay out of advisory roles for MoE. The country does not need this.

The confrontation approach towards West and USA that was maintained by yourself and others such as Prof.Rajiva is one of the courses for current predicament.

So I congratulate you.

I don’t disagree with your points, Dayan, but it still doesn’t explain why the GoSL is choosing a hard defense over engagement in regard to a largely toothless resolution. The criticism of the LLRC would probably have been dropped by the US if we engaged with them in the drafting as they have pushed for.

The GoSL is painting itself into a corner where it MUST win in Geneva at all costs if it is not to be humiliated at home. The GoSL made out the resolution to be as bad as an investigation, and incited people to protest it in the same manner. This is absurd, given the pointlessness of the resolution. However, the GoSL cannot now declare the resolution pointless because the locals will ask it what on earth the big deal is. The vocal protests from the GoSL has even convinced the diaspora that the resolution is worth supporting!

1. It wasn’t the US that claimed the resolution was solely for securing the expeditious implementation of the LLRC. That smokescreen was laid down by its local puppets such as the dominant faction of the UNP, the TNA, the CPA etc. So, my critique was aimed at that lie, from those quarters.

2. Our problem in Geneva is not that we did not negotiate amendments with the USA. The tiny Palestinian delegation, with its friends (among whom I am lucky to be counted) beat a far more serious US diplomatic offensive at UNESCO and obtained membership. The Cubans win a 190-3 vote against the US every year at the UGA in New York.

3. The problem lies elsewhere: have we done what we need to, at home and abroad, in order to retain the winning coalition of May 2009? Have we kept our allies , our united front with us? have we safeguarded and sustained the Geneva Consensus? If we have/had, we have the option of going for a win or moving a counter tesolution or putting forward winning amendments not as Sri lanka alone but as a bloc. If not, not. This is a subject that I have focused on in my writings on GV and elsewhere, from 2008, the last year of the war, perhaps–or, probably–to little or no avail.

We don’t need to talk beyond a point to our hypocritical accusers, but we do have to talk sincerely to our friends, neighbours and allies.

Thilina Rajapaksa, I have never read MR’s election manifestos of 2005 and 2010. I supported him, as did the voters, not for his manifesto but because he was willing to stand up to the Tigers while Ranil had done the opposite(2005) and because he was the overall political leader on whose watch we won the war (2010). We had given two terms to his predecessor who could have but didn’t win the war.

As far as I am concerned, the only leader who stood by and strove to implement his election manifesto in some detail was R Premadasa. I supported him. He was murdered by the Tigers. I supported the man I correctly thought was willing to take them down.

By the way, I also support Putin, as do 65% of Russians.

May be the US should have considered the LLRC report as a project that the GSL want funds to implement and included the dollar amount that it and those supporting countries would donate to implement the LLRC proposal on conditions that GSL would allow monitoring and review and the GSL would submit the report to the UNHRC later this year. Also, instead of letting those in power siphon off commissions that may make some of them feel guilty, a scheme for awarding Bonus can be devised for those who do their duty and are just.

Another option for US and the UNHRC would be to ask the GSL to submit the LLRC report as a project to the World Bank to fund it with the usual strings attached. That would be a lot of commissions from the top to the bottom. Such alternatives would have been very palatable to the GSL patriots and it would not have necessitated the GSL to send an “Armada” of loyal warriors at the expense of the Tax payers and obfuscated funds from the loans and aids.

‘Cho’http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/4795

Thanks!