(May 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Russian Ambassdor in Sri Lanka, Vladimir P. Mikhaylov has said that the UN panel report was counterproductive and, “if some forces try to defend or push forward the allegations” Russia will oppose such moves.

The Ambassador in an interview with the Sunday Times explaining why Russia was opposing the panel report said there were too many questions about the report.

Excerpts:

At that time it was not officially submitted. It had not been made public. We opposed the publication of the report at that time.

On the grounds that it was not a UN report. On the grounds that it was not done in accordance with the regulations and the procedures of the UN. From the very beginning it was told that the report was purely for the Secretary General. So if it was for the Secretary General why did they have to publish it?.

We opposed the publication. We made it clear not to publish it. This was not because of the contents, but on a matter of principle, as initially it was not made for publication.

I heard that some of the countries took up similar positions, but I wouldn’t like to comment on the positions they took.

We still hope there will be no consequences. Since the report has been made public, we know that it is not objective and not based on real facts. The allegations are not proved. So I hope sober-minded people, including politicians and members of the United Nations Secretariat, and ambassadors will understand that the report cannot be a grounds for any further action. If some forces try to defend or push forward the allegations we will oppose it.

I I do not see that, as it is a long procedure, we should not veto the report itself, we may veto a resolution. At the moment there is no draft resolution or any preparation for a resolution. So why should we speak about an imaginary situation? In case, if there is a draft resolution saying the report is not reliable, we may support it.

We think that the situation in Sri Lanka was considered at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka opposed that move. The situation was studied and discussed. I do not think the situation in Sri Lanka worsened so that the HRC should consider the situation. There are many other burning issues concerning human rights violations .

We do not see that the report should be a basis for any steps. We do not see any reason or grounds to even consider Sri Lanka at the Human Rights Council.

From the very beginning when the so called panel of experts was appointed, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed the views of Russia. A statement was issued. Here it was stated, ‘the UN Secretary General as Chief Administrative officer of the UN should apparently have asked the opinion of the Security Council or the General Assembly on this matter.” But this has not happened.

From the very beginning we were skeptical of the panel. We were assured by the Secretary General and his staff the task was not to investigate and was not a fact finding mission, but only to advise the Secretary General. But what we saw later did not correspond to what was told earlier.

The LLRC was appointed and is working. We should give time for the commission to make conclusions and present the report to the President and for Sri Lanka to take necessary steps. Unfortunately, the panel did not wait for the report.

They ignored the work of the commission and without the Security Council mandate they presented the report and that report was objected by Sri Lanka and not welcomed by permanent members of the Security Council like China and Russia.

We do not understand why the report was published and we think it is counterproductive and does not give enough time to study and respond to the report . To describe the LTTE in the report as a most disciplined nationalist group of Tamils and not a terrorist organization has been recognized by many countries as unacceptable.

To describe the last stages of the war as a ‘tragedy too cannot be accepted. For whom was it a tragedy? The war itself was a tragedy. The end of the war should be welcomed by the international community. There are also untestified allegations in respect of the Lankan Government. The report says the conclusions were made based on the evidence of individuals and groups that were considered ‘reliable’ by the panel itself which means they were choosing who was reliable and who was not.

There are too many questions about the report. In general it looks like that the authors of the report were far from objective.

Maybe there would have been discussions between some of the Sri Lanka representatives with our (Russian) representatives in New York. But even without any request the case is clear to us. It is only a matter for Sri Lanka. It is a matter of principle.

As a friendly country, we would like to see complete reconciliation as soon as possible. But at the same time we trust the legitimate government and President of Sri Lanka. They know how best to deal with local problems, internal problems and how fast to move. We understand there are problems in the process of reconciliation. We would like to see it completed. But I do not believe that such reports help the Sri Lankan Government to achieve the process of reconciliation, it would only complicate it.