In fact, by this, it is only a shade less intrusive than co-sponsorship of 30/1 as was done in 2015. Is it prudent to go down the road of supporting a consensual resolution? Of course, the proponents of the resolution would fervently work towards a consensual text, as they would be able to sell it to other members of the Council on the basis that Sri Lanka is on board. The Sri Lankan decision makers on the strategy to be adopted should also give serious thought as to the reason for the proponent to be relentlessly pursuing a consensual text. Is it a way of saving face by the proponents following Sri Lanka’s withdrawal of co-sponsorship as announced in 2020? In this manner, is Sri Lanka ready to accept the dictates of the Human Rights High Commissioner which could form the text of the resolution? Sri Lanka having expressed grave concerns on the report will end up legitimizing the report if it traverses the consensual path.
A non-consensual option would serve Sri Lanka better, as some opposition to the dictates of the resolution would get established, and thereby reduce its sting. It would further demonstrate some support for Sri Lanka against the misplaced agendas and machinations of the resolution’s proponents. Seeking a favourable resolution for Sri Lanka has no place, as its adoption needs to be ensured. Decision makers must also be mindful that there is no resolution which is favourable or otherwise.