Former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe opposes international accountability through the ICJ, criticizing Western nations for double standards. He calls for domestic mechanisms to achieve justice for Tamil victims and defends Sri Lanka’s World War II contributions as foundational to modern human rights. His rhetoric aligns with historical government resistance to international scrutiny, reflecting ongoing debates about accountability and justice.
Former Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe has expressed his steadfast opposition to Sri Lanka’s referral to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a recent interview. He accused Western nations of exhibiting double standards and criticized the United Nations, claiming that modern human rights frameworks owe their existence to Sri Lanka’s contributions during World War II.
Wickremesinghe stressed his commitment to achieving justice for Tamil victims through domestic mechanisms rather than international channels. He acknowledged his prior failure to fully operationalize the 13th Amendment during his presidency and called for increased authority and responsibilities for Provincial Councils. He emphasized that all perpetrators, irrespective of their status, must be held accountable, urging the fulfillment of previous commitments made to the UN.
His statements come in response to rising demands from Tamil victims and external calls for independent investigations into allegations of war crimes. Wickremesinghe’s position is consistent with the historical stance of Sri Lankan administrations, which have resisted external accountability while advocating domestic solutions, despite inadequate progress in delivering justice and reforms.
Amid ongoing government rejection of international mechanisms, Wickremesinghe criticized the perceived inconsistency in how international powers respond to different situations, particularly regarding Ukraine. He highlighted the contrasting autonomy given to Ukraine while asserting that Sri Lanka has not been granted the same considerations. He remarked, “If they can go after President Trump, what chance do we have,” suggesting that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) should avoid double standards detrimental to Sri Lanka.
Wickremesinghe further voiced criticism towards the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), expressing displeasure with their confrontational approach towards Sri Lanka. He recounted that, despite disagreements with former UN High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, there was an opportunity for dialogue. He suggested that the OHCHR could also undergo scrutiny if they continue to criticize Sri Lanka.
In an unexpected statement, Wickremesinghe claimed credit for liberating Europe during World War II, stating, “we liberated Europe” and affirming that Sri Lankans, alongside Indians and Africans, had played a pivotal role against Hitler. He argued, “If we hadn’t fought and defeated Hitler, you would not have been able to create a human rights charter.”
In conclusion, Ranil Wickremesinghe’s remarks underscore a persistent resistance to international accountability from Sri Lankan leadership, advocating for domestic mechanisms to address justice-related concerns. His statements reveal a desire to deflect international scrutiny by invoking historical contributions to World War II, while also highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the global approach to human rights issues. As calls for justice amplify, the efficacy of domestic solutions remains questionable.
Original Source: www.tamilguardian.com
