Ranil Wickremesinghe opposes Sri Lanka’s potential trial at the ICJ, arguing the West exhibits double standards while praising the nation’s World War II contributions. He advocates for addressing Tamil victims’ justice through local mechanisms and calls for greater powers for Provincial Councils, despite prior failures. His remarks reflect ongoing resistance to international accountability amidst rising calls for justice in Sri Lanka.
Former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe has stated his opposition to Sri Lanka being taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that Western nations display double standards. He emphasizes that without Sri Lanka’s contributions during World War II, the current human rights framework might not have been established, as reported by the Jaffna daily Maalaikathir.
Wickremesinghe proposes that justice for Tamil victims should be addressed through domestic mechanisms rather than international trials. He highlighted the need for greater authority and responsibilities to be given to Provincial Councils, citing the incomplete implementation of the 13th Amendment during his presidency. He insisted on accountability for all perpetrators while affirming commitment to UN obligations.
With mounting calls for independent investigations into war crimes, Wickremesinghe reiterated the stance of previous governments that favor domestic over international accountability, despite insufficient progress in delivering justice. He criticized the current government’s rejection of international mechanisms and pointed to perceived biases against Sri Lanka when juxtaposed with favorable treatment afforded to Ukraine.
In his remarks regarding recent international events, he noted the discretion given to Ukraine in decision-making and expressed concerns about being subject to different standards. He quipped about the treatment of leaders like President Trump and questioned how Sri Lanka might expect fair treatment under the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). His comments are indicative of a consistent pattern among past Sri Lankan administrations in avoiding international scrutiny.
Wickremesinghe also voiced discontent with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for its critical stance toward Sri Lanka. He recalled that prior UN High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay offered constructive dialogue but lamented the current approach, which he felt was overly aggressive. He implied that OHCHR’s status is contingent upon Sri Lanka’s historical contributions.
In a striking statement, Wickremesinghe proclaimed that Sri Lanka played a vital role in liberating Europe during World War II, emphasizing their fight against Hitler. He asserted, “If we hadn’t fought and defeated Hitler, you would not have been able to create a human rights charter,” asserting the historical significance of Sri Lanka’s sacrifices in the context of modern human rights developments.
Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview underscores Sri Lanka’s longstanding reluctance to engage with international accountability measures. He justified this stance by invoking the nation’s contributions in World War II and critiqued perceived biases in international attitudes. Moreover, while stressing the importance of domestic justice mechanisms, he maintained that the legacy of Sri Lanka’s wartime role should influence current discussions on human rights and accountability.
Original Source: www.tamilguardian.com
