In a recent interview, Ranil Wickremesinghe opposed Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICJ, criticizing perceived double standards of Western nations. He advocates for domestic justice mechanisms, denounces international scrutiny, and claims Sri Lankan contributions to World War II underlie the human rights framework. His comments reveal a longstanding resistance to international accountability by Sri Lankan governments.
In a recent interview, former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe expressed his strong opposition to referring Sri Lanka to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to the Jaffna daily Maalaikathir, he accused Western nations of exhibiting double standards and criticized the United Nations, asserting that Sri Lanka’s contributions during World War II played a crucial role in establishing the modern human rights framework.
Wickremesinghe reiterated his preference for addressing justice for Tamil victims through domestic mechanisms rather than international intervention. He highlighted the need for empowering Provincial Councils, emphasizing accountability for perpetrators regardless of their identity, while calling for the fulfillment of previous commitments to the UN. His remarks align with the stance of various Sri Lankan administrations that have resisted international accountability, often pushing for local avenues despite a lack of substantial justice and reform.
Faced with ongoing demands for independent investigations into alleged war crimes, Wickremesinghe condemned the perceived bias of international actions, particularly regarding Ukraine. He noted that while Ukraine has received favorable treatment from Western nations, Sri Lanka has not been granted similar autonomy. Criticizing the actions of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), he remarked, “If they can go after President Trump, what chance do we have?”
Wickremesinghe also made pointed remarks about the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), suggesting that past High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay’s disagreements should not preclude dialogue. He characterized the current OHCHR’s approach as aggressive and claimed that they should recognize their dependence on Sri Lanka. He stated, “They need to realize that they are there because of us.”
In a surprising assertion, Wickremesinghe claimed that Sri Lankans had a significant role in liberating Europe during World War II, stating, “We liberated Europe” and attributing the success in combating Hitler to efforts from Sri Lankans, Indians, and Africans. He implied that these contributions were foundational in the creation of the human rights charter.
Ultimately, former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s comments reflect the complex interplay between national pride and international accountability regarding Sri Lanka’s past actions. His prioritization of domestic mechanisms for justice and criticism of international standards highlight a longstanding governmental resistance to external scrutiny. Wickremesinghe’s assertions underscore the intricate historical narratives that continue to shape contemporary debates on human rights in Sri Lanka.
Original Source: www.tamilguardian.com
