Posts
The Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations in Geneva wishes to contradict several inaccuracies and distortions contained in a report in the London Daily Express, which seems to have been echoed by certain other news organizations, to the effect that Sri Lanka called for the abolition of the British monarchy.
There was no such call, not by Sri Lanka and not by the UN Human Rights Council. Indeed the quote cited in the Daily Express does not include such a call. It recommends only that the UK 'consider' the holding of a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican, with a bill of rights. The Daily Express has omitted the reference to a bill of rights.
The entire matter is regarded as subject to the sovereign decision of the British people, and the recommendation is that the UK considers the ascertainment of their wishes by means of a referendum. It contains the further qualifier of 'the desirability or otherwise'.
It is a double distortion to assert that Sri Lanka insisted on the inclusion of the recommendation of the abolition of the monarchy in the UN report, firstly because, as stated above, no such recommendation was made, secondly because the preparation and production of the report is entirely a matter for the group of three randomly chosen states, termed the 'troika' together with the state under review, in this case the UK. Sri Lanka was not a member of the 'troika'.
It was entirely the prerogative of the state under review, the UK, to raise a point of order, or object to the listing of any recommendation it chose to reject, and thereby limit its mention to the summary of proceedings in the narrative portion of the text. The state under review also has the further option of engaging through the troika with any other state which had made recommendations to negotiate their modification.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process and mechanism entail recommendations which are constructively intended. In the UPR process the UK too has made many recommendations about other countries, which those countries have dealt with in different ways
There was no such call, not by Sri Lanka and not by the UN Human Rights Council. Indeed the quote cited in the Daily Express does not include such a call. It recommends only that the UK 'consider' the holding of a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican, with a bill of rights. The Daily Express has omitted the reference to a bill of rights.
The entire matter is regarded as subject to the sovereign decision of the British people, and the recommendation is that the UK considers the ascertainment of their wishes by means of a referendum. It contains the further qualifier of 'the desirability or otherwise'.
It is a double distortion to assert that Sri Lanka insisted on the inclusion of the recommendation of the abolition of the monarchy in the UN report, firstly because, as stated above, no such recommendation was made, secondly because the preparation and production of the report is entirely a matter for the group of three randomly chosen states, termed the 'troika' together with the state under review, in this case the UK. Sri Lanka was not a member of the 'troika'.
It was entirely the prerogative of the state under review, the UK, to raise a point of order, or object to the listing of any recommendation it chose to reject, and thereby limit its mention to the summary of proceedings in the narrative portion of the text. The state under review also has the further option of engaging through the troika with any other state which had made recommendations to negotiate their modification.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process and mechanism entail recommendations which are constructively intended. In the UPR process the UK too has made many recommendations about other countries, which those countries have dealt with in different ways
Comments