While Sri Lanka's decisive military victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on May 19, 2009 is still talked about for its historic …
Despite Sri Lanka was a low-interest country in the vast Asian region, the Obama White House and Clinton State Department, influenced by the …
Sri Lanka is averse to setting up of an international hybrid court with local and foreign judges to investigate alleged war crimes committed by the …
The session will see Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein submit a report on Sri Lanka and a discussion also taking place on the progress made so far on …
Feb 14, Colombo: The United Kingdom plans to sponsor a new consensus resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at its …
The TGTE Resolution while encouraging the UNHRC to remain seized with accountability and transitional justice in Sri Lanka, requests it to refer the …
An overwhelming majority of 95% of Sri Lankans spoken to by TNS Lanka “feel that powerful nations have double standards regarding human rights …
Foreign Secretary William Hague:
Further to my written Ministerial statement of 18 March [40WS], the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on Sri Lanka on 27 March. This resolution calls for an international investigation into allegations of violations and abuses of international law on both sides during the civil war, and for progress on reconciliation, human rights and a political settlement. The British Government is pleased with this outcome and strongly believes that it was the right decision.
My right Honourable friend the Prime Minister committed the UK to calling for an international investigation following his visit to Sri Lanka last year where he witnessed the situation on the ground first hand. The UK was an important co-sponsor of the resolution, alongside the US, Montenegro, Macedonia and Mauritius.
The passing of this resolution sends an important and strong message to the Sri Lankan government – that they must address the grievances of the recent past in order to help secure lasting peace and reconciliation, and a prosperous future for all the people of Sri Lanka. The resolution represents a significant step forward in ensuring the truth is established for the Sri Lankan people.
By voting in favour of this resolution, the international community has shown that it has listened to the many independent voices, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself and domestic support in Sri Lanka, calling for an international investigation and helped the UN HRC to establish a strong and unambiguous resolution. The United Kingdom will continue to work with the UN HRC and our international partners to ensure proper implementation of this resolution. We encourage the Sri Lankan government fully to co-operate with the resolution, and to work alongside the international community for the benefit of its people.
It is important also to recognise that Sri Lanka is an extraordinary country with enormous potential and the end of the conflict presents an opportunity for it to become a strong and prosperous nation. This resolution will help to address the legitimate concerns of all communities. It presents an opportunity to tackle the root causes of conflict, continued human rights concerns and set Sri Lanka on the right path for reconciliation. We hope that the Sri Lankan government will embrace that opportunity.
UNHRC voting insight for 2012 and 2013
The first finding was that those who have a stronger trading relationship with Sri Lanka were also the most supportive of the resolutions. Those who opposed or abstained are those that have a weaker trading relationship. Looking at Sri Lanka’s exports to and imports from the countries involved in the voting, those who voted for the resolution accounted for over 80 percent of the exports and over 60 percent of the imports. That means the countries that voted against the resolution or abstained accounted for only the balance 20 percent and 40 percent of exports and imports.
The second finding was that Sri Lanka generally benefits more from countries that voted for the resolution. Benefits of trade are usually estimated on the basis of positive or negative trade balances. A country is in a beneficial relationship to another, when it exports more to them than it imports from them. This is called a positive trade balance. The opposite is a negative trade balance. Sri Lanka had a positive trade balance with countries that voted for the resolution (discounting India) and Sri Lanka had a negative trade balance with countries that voted against and the countries that abstained. India was an outlier that could have tipped the balance: Sri Lanka has a very high negative trade balance with India.
Repeating analysis for 2014
The same analysis can be conducted on the voting pattern in March 2014 (using data on 2013 trade) and the analysis changes somewhat. The important difference in 2014 is this: it is not simply those who have a stronger trading relationship that voted for or abstained on the resolution, the pattern is more nuanced: it’s more those who Sri Lanka exports to than those that Sri Lanka imports from that voted “for” the resolution.
But first, a note on how voting patterns changed. In 2012 and 2013, no country that voted on both occasions ever changed their voting position. If “for” the resolution in 2012 they had remained “for” it in 2013 and the same for being “against” and “abstaining”. But in 2014, six countries changed their voting position. India changed from being “for” to “abstaining” and Botswana went the other way, from “abstaining” to “for”. The Philippines, Indonesia and Kuwait, all went from having been against to abstaining and Kenya went the other way from having “abstained” to being “against”.
Proportion of exports and imports amongst UNHRC voters
Of countries voting in 2014, it is the countries that Sri Lanka most exports to that voted “for” the resolution – they account for 74 percent of Sri Lankan exports to the voting countries. That means that the countries voting “against” or “abstaining” account for only the remaining 26 percent of Sri Lankan exports (even with India – which abstained – alone accounting for 8 percent).
The countries that voted “against” or “abstained” dominated the total imports by Sri Lanka from the voting countries. They accounted for 83 percent of the total imports (with India accounting for 27 percent of that). The countries that voted “for” the resolution accounted for only 17 percent of Sri Lanka’s imports. (The shift from last year, is, on the final analysis, a sign of India’s importance in Sri Lankan imports – without India, the “for” voters in 2012 and 2013 would not have dominated the imports).
Positive and negative trade balance, discounting Indian
Given that positive trade balances are beneficial to the country while negative trade balances are not, it is helpful to evaluate the countries that voted not only in terms of the export and import volumes but in terms of the trade balance with those countries.
Sri Lanka has a large trade surplus (US $ 3.2 billion – up from US $ 2 billion on the 2013 vote) with the countries that voted “for” the resolution in 2014 and a large trade deficit (of US $ 5.1 billion – up from US $ 2.6 billion in the 2013 vote) with the countries that voted against or abstained in 2014 (this is excluding India, if India is added, the trade deficit increases to 7.7 percent). Therefore, not only did those voting for the resolution emerge, once again in 2014, as the “beneficial friends” but the extent to which they are beneficial is much larger in 2014. With India, which has been excluded from this section, Sri Lanka has a trade deficit of about US $ 2.6 billion.
Sri Lankan exports directly account for 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (2013) and through the multiplier effect, the benefit to the economy could be considerably larger. The countries that sat on the UNHRC in 2014 alone account for 70 percent of total exports from Sri Lanka. The countries that supported the resolution accounted for 52 percent. That is a large chunk of Sri Lanka’s total exports.
Countries with which Sri Lanka has a positive trade balance are countries that are helping Sri Lanka avoid a balance of payment problem and vice versa. Therefore, on this trade-related analysis there is an important message. Sri Lanka has a great deal to gain by cooperating with the countries that voted “for” the resolution. They make up more than 50 percent of Sri Lanka’s exports and they have huge positive trade balance with Sri Lanka.
(Verité Research provides strategic analysis and advice for governments and the private sector in Asia. Comments welcome, email insights @veriteresearch.org)
India said that it had abstained from the vote against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC unlike the resolutions in 2009, 2012 and 2013, this resolution imposes …