The resolution urges Colombo to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), to take steps “to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation.”

Working behind the scenes, the Indian delegation managed to see that Colombo is not isolated completely. This resulted in injecting in the resolution “an element of balance in the language of the resolution.”

Though President Rajapaksa has reasons to be upset by the final vote, he has reasons to sport a smile that all was not lost for him. Because, the resolution asks the UN Human Rights Commissioner to work “in consultation with, and with the concurrence” of the Sri Lankan government in implementing the LLRC proposals.

It can be argued that in the final analysis the resolution invests Colombo with a means of blocking UNHRC actions. Yes, it may indeed. But Rajapaksa government is not unaware of the geo-political and strategic reality. Acting against public opinion at home and abroad will not pay any dividends.

Whatever be the sentiments and the tone of a conference table, it must be remembered that Rajapaksa’s is a duly, democratically elected government. It must not be undermined in its capacity to take decisions even if they are delayed for what ever reason. More over, Sri Lanka is not a banana republic even if the elected president appears to be going over board as a Mugabawe clone.

Yes, President Mahinda Rajapakse had set up the LLRC primarily to fend off international criticism. It was also his chosen instrument to whitewash human rights abuses and violation of other democratic rights by his government and the military during the war to eliminate the LTTE scourge. The international community should use the same instrument to force him to mend his ways since there is no end as yet to rights violations in the Tamil speaking North of the country.  

Expectedly, the Sri Lankan government lobbied heavily against any resolution calling for even limited action on human rights. Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe told the UNHRC that his government should be given “time to further consolidate the clear progress” of reconciliation and peace made since the end of the civil war in May 2009.

Samarasinghe’s claim was economical on truth. Because, the reconciliation phase the minister speaks about has resulted in permanent military presence in the North and East of the island. And resulted in Sinhala colonization of the region by the backdoor.

China and Russia voted against the resolution saying it was interference in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. Eight countries abstained but India voted along with the US as the final version had its imprint.  The tally was 24 in favour and 15 against and the resolution was passed.

Agreed India’s support for the UNHRC resolution marks a shift from 2009, when it voted with Russia and China against a resolution calling for an international inquiry into the human rights abuses. New Delhi is engaged in a delicate balancing act. It wants to maintain close ties with the Rajapakse government and at the same time nudge Colombo gently to fulfilling its commitments to the ethnic Tamil minority.  India also factored in the mood in Tamilnadu, which is one of widespread outrage over the treatment of Sri Lankan Tamils.

After the vote, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote to Rajapakse in an effort to appease him. Singh declared that India had “spared no effort” to introduce “an element of balance in the language of the resolution.”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Geneva vote as a strong signal sent to Sri Lanka by the United States “together with the international community”. She avers that the message to Sri Lanka is that it will only achieve lasting peace through real reconciliation and accountability.” She is no doubt right in her observation. But it is bit difficult to take her statement on its face value since US track record on HR is anything praiseworthy from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.