The doublespeak of world community
Prof Rajiva WIJESINHA
Many years ago George Orwell wrote a book called 1984, in which he
prefigured Prabhakaran, a dominant figure who presided over a well of
human misery. As we hear more from the Sri Lankans who have now escaped
his clutches, as we see pictures of the luxury he and his family
enjoyed, as we shudder at the injuries caused to the fleeing by bullets
and landmines, we are reminded of the destruction and human misery
imposed by those who seek and achieve absolute power.
But there was another aspect of 1984 that also came to prominence
last week, as we noted the extraordinary perversion of language used by
those who want to hold the Sri Lankan state responsible for the misery
Prabhakaran has caused. For Orwell also invented something called
‘Doublespeak’, namely the use of language to mean the opposite of what
was said.
Thus last week saw a spate of visits by foreigners, all of them
complaining that the Sri Lankan government has limited access to the
welfare centres in which our fellow Sri Lankans who escaped the Tigers
are now housed. They claim that journalists are not allowed to go there,
when the place has been bursting with journalists who have been
reporting quite freely on what they saw and even on what they did not
see.
The most remarkable use of doublespeak has however been that of the
UN, which has mastered the art of expanding its bureaucracy whilst
delivering much less than what it promised, much less than could be
expected from the funds lavished on it by donors who seem to suspect the
intentions, the capacity and the financial integrity of the Sri Lankan
government and Sri Lankan Civil Society. The exception to this is
non-governmental organizations devoted to what is termed advocacy, which
is interpreted as being not advocacy on behalf of the Sri Lankan people,
but advocacy against the government the Sri Lankan people elected -
which was why the European Union, having sworn blind that it did not
give funds to humanitarian national NGOs because its regulations forbade
this, had to confess that it did give money to other types of national
NGOs such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives, but that was under a
different scheme.
Still, donors are entitled to do what they want with their money, and
we cannot complain if they have their chosen beneficiaries.
There may be a moral flaw, in that the taxpayers in donor countries
are told that they are paying for poor people in the third world, but
the poor intended recipients of largesse get very little of it by the
time the funds have gone through the bureaucracies of the donor country
(necessary), the United Nations (perhaps desirable, if it truly
represented the Nations of the World rather than a small segment of it),
an International NGO (undesirable unless that NGO, like the old capable
ones, actually collects money at home rather than seeking it in the
target country), and then often local NGOs (acceptable, since at least
salaries are expended in country instead of back in the West).
But morality has nothing to do with it, the world of international
aid being as much about the naked exercise of power as other aspects of
diplomacy. We must be glad about what we get, and even more glad that
there are at least some countries who give ungrudgingly and without
making a song and dance about it. But Asian traditions are not Western
ones, and like Oliver Twist we must learn to be humble.
Obligation
It does however become a bit much when we also have to put up with
doublespeak from at least some elements in the UN, who forget that they
are supposed to be our partners. Last week saw a particularly ugly
display of patronage, when the self-obsessed young women who think they
are protecting Sri Lankans misled their superiors in Colombo about how
they had handled what they presented as serious issues. Ignoring their
obligation to work together with Sri Lankan partners to correct anything
that might be wrong, they trumpeted it publicly, achieving the mass
media publicity that was obviously their intention.
But more serious perhaps was the squalid treatment meted out to the
IDPs. From the start we had asked that decent housing be provided, and
we were assured that this would be done. I had a pleasant description of
the type of shelter that would be built, with tarpaulins and frames
which allowed one to stand, instead of the ghastly tents we had found so
painful previously. But then, lo and behold, it was precisely those
tents that were flown in, at great expense, the efforts of the Ministry
of Nation Building to suggest local purchase being ignored when a whole
host finally managed to escape the Tigers.
That so many tents should have been put up so quickly was however
something for which we had to be grateful. What was surprising was that,
after we had been specially enjoined to ensure that there was land to
pitch them, and after our forces worked day and night to ensure this, we
were told that a designated site might not be to the satisfaction of the
UN.
Then, not only after the sudden rush, but even before, contrary to
what had been promised, the toilets did not keep up with the shelters
that were put up, and what we had was ghastly. There were insufficient
open spaces, insufficient learning centres for children. Sadly, there
had been a controversy about putting up comfortable sheds using thatch,
some foreigners claiming either that this was inadequate or else that it
cost more than was permissible (these two opposite excuses are heard all
the time, often simultaneously).
Again, with regard to toilets, decent toilets at a reasonable cost
had been put up earlier, but these met with a storm of protest, with
UNHCR claiming that they were being blamed by their donors on the
grounds that water and sanitation was not their business. No wonder
several Sri Lankans have come to believe that at least a few individuals
in the UN system want to create problems, to have overflowing toilets,
so that they can claim that the state is incapable of looking after its
own.
And sure enough the expected barrage about this did come, in the form
of first letters and then a demarche from a number of Special
Rapporteurs, none of whom had indicated any desire to engage with the
Sri Lankan delegation to the last session of the Human Rights Council in
Geneva. These included Rapporteurs on Food and Health and Water, and
also for good measure the Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Killings, who is
evidently under the impression that our attempt to rescue the hostages
in the Safe Zone must be stopped at once. That all of them should pounce
together, just when the principal donors were trying to arrange a
special session to rouse emotions about Sri Lanka, cannot be mere
coincidence.
Grabbed by Tigers
Those Rapporteurs surprisingly received no complaints from UN staff
on the ground when the food we sent in to the citizens in the Vanni was
grabbed by the Tigers for their own purposes, which included using rice
bags for bunkers. Though their concern now is touching, and will we hope
lead to better toilets at least, it seems of a piece with a system that
has managed to ensure two leaks, one mistake and a couple of direct hits
in the form of media performances by junior stuff, all damaging to Sri
Lanka, in the course of the last few months. This contrasts
magnificiently with the fact that their records of continuing forced
recruitment by the Tigers, which were confined to internal documents,
were kept scrupulously safe from any publicity, all the time they
remained in the Vanni. What is quite remarkable is that, having acted
either carelessly or callously in a way that damaged the government,
such people think it is our fault that they do not have the confidence
of the Sri Lankan people at large. It is our fault that individuals they
see as connected to government criticize them roundly and their name is
mud in most national newspapers and amongst the average Sri Lankan.
Conversely it is also our fault that we are losing the media battle
elsewhere, and that the newspapers they read, the media outlets they
watch and listen to (and call up when there are particularly juicy bits
to publicize) are so critical of us.
Sometimes I wonder whether they think we are all complete idiots. But
then, perhaps we are. Politeness is mistaken for obsequiousness, and
perhaps we would have done better to be firm. We have allowed falsehoods
about Sri Lanka to be propagated in official documents, without any
protest. We have allowed an agency that purports to coordinate
humanitarian assistance to do so without giving us any information as to
who gave what aid for what purpose over the last three years. We have
accepted apologies in private and not insisted that they be given in
writing. And we have not made it clear that, whilst we can also see the
many amongst them who are here to do good on behalf of our people, and
whilst we will do whatever we can to help such people to help us, we
will resist hypocrisy and doublespeak and assistance that traduces the
dignity of our people. |
