Assessing UN Secretary General’s Panel Report
By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe
I have now had an opportunity to read through what is supposed to be
the Report of the Panel appointed by the UN Secretary General to advise
him on what were termed accountability issued. The report has been
leaked by the indefatigable Sanjana Hattotuwa, who does however note
that he cannot confirm if this is the actual text. He adds that the UN
has regretted the leak.
In responding to the report, I believe there are four areas on which
we should concentrate, with dignity but determination. The first is to
look at the alleged facts, on the basis of which the Panel has made
certain criticisms of our armed forces. The second is to deal with their
suggestions as to how the country can ensure reconciliation, with
appropriate remedial action. The third is to examine the methodology
employed by the Panel. Finally, we should consider, on the evidence of
the document, and not simply in terms of prior suspicious, though these
may be used to substantiate internal evidence, the motivation behind
this report.
To deal with the first question, if this is part of the report, it
must be just a small part because, as with previous such attacks on the
Sri Lankan government, it consists largely of generalizations and very
few facts. The UN however cannot be so irresponsible, and I would
certainly have expected more of Mr. Darusman, who seemed a polished and
decent chap when I met him at a Workshop organized by the Asian Liberals
some years back. I suspect then that we will have details of supposed
violations by the armed forces.
I do not suppose these will be difficult to deal with, since we have
already looked at the basis on which these allegations were made. There
are claims that we shelled hospitals, which was a principal component of
an earlier report by Human Rights Watch, to which I conclusively gave
the lie some time back. There is an assertion that tens of thousands
died in the last few months of the conflict, which I have shown is
absolute nonsense. There is an accusation that we shelled on a large
scale in three No Fire Zones, when I have pointed out that the Head of
the UN, who first accused us of this, retracted later the same day and
noted that most of the shelling came from the LTTE.
Of course the Panel may bring out instances other than those we have
dealt with, but I suspect the mixture will be more of the same. Even
more alarmingly, there is a plethora of allegations about the Welfare
Centres, whereas we actually did a fantastic job there, despite some
incompetence on the part of a few international officials and aid
agencies who nearly caused a cholera outbreak because of their total
disregard for national standards with regard to the construction of
toilets.
With regard to the second point, the Panel has put its cards on the
table in making clear its belief that healing can only come through what
it characterizes as retributive justice. It also harangues the
Government by claiming that it is both triumphalist and exclusionary.
This again is nonsensical, given the fervent attempts of government to
promote equitable development for all, the rapid strides taken in making
inclusive language policies more meaningful (after twenty years in which
the provision that made Tamil an official language was largely ignored),
the distinction made between satisfaction at having defeated terrorism
and determination to make up to the Tamil people for what they have
suffered.
Accountability issues
As for the third point, it seems to me that the Panel has far
exceeded its brief in that we were assured by the Secretary General that
it was intended to advise him on Accountability issues, whereas it seems
to have seen its role as that of cutting the Sri Lankan government down
to size. We knew from the start that there was some uncertainty on the
part of members of the Panel, given that they thought it essential to
come to Sri Lanka, whereas the Secretary General accepted that this was
not essential. We also have to remember that many of those who pushed
for such a panel were anxious to try us for War Crimes, and indeed
individuals who sought appointment to the Panel they anticipated made it
clear that this is what they thought they would be doing. I have no
evidence that the three members who were finally appointed had this
view, but given their connections with what one might call the Human
Rights establishment, it is possible they were led astray.
Connected with this is their total disregard for the Aristotelian
principle of treating the same things in a different fashion being one
of the principal causes of injustice. It is astonishing that a South
African and an Indonesian cry out for retributive justice, given what
happened in their own countries, and how much swifter the process of
reconciliation has been when there were no calls for the blood of those
who had been oppressive and then had to give up power to more
enlightened dispensations. Of course in Sri Lanka it was the government
which won out in the end, against a singularly brutal enemy, but it
seems that this difference has contributed to an anxiety to do us down.
Even more astonishing is the sanctimoniousness of an American, who
seems ignorant of the systemic abuse of Rights his government has
engaged in, during what it terms its ongoing War on Terror. We make no
criticism of this ourselves, because we realize how terrified and
vulnerable America felt after the September 2011 attacks. Others may
claim that those attacks have been used to justify appalling excesses,
but it is not surprising that the UN cannot look into such matters.
At the same time we recognize that what might be termed the
Democratic establishment did have genuine qualms about what was going
on. Unfortunately, having come to power themselves, they cannot really
take remedial action in areas where American interests run deep. I am
reminded then of what a Republican said to me, that we needed to be
careful, since what he described as the bleeding hearts would therefore
concentrate their fire on countries like Sri Lanka - though he did add
that, if we could keep the Americans happy, the actual decision makers
could tell them to turn their fire on Djibouti.
This connects with perhaps the most worrying element in the whole
exercise, the motivation behind the attacks. The repeated regrets about
the defeat in 2009 of the Resolution brought by several European
countries before the Human Rights Council make it clear that that
rankles. It is not obviously the role of a small country to see off an
attack by such powerful entities. When the report goes on to recommend
strong Civil Society participation in looking at our recent history, we
can see where the Panellists are coming from, given also what we now
know about the selective manner in which the more forceful elements of
such Civil Society are funded.
Resist
In short, we can see here again an effort to ensure continuing
domination of a sovereign state, an exercise that the
Jayewardene/Wickremesinghe tradition in the UNP has made seem the
natural fate of Sri Lanka. We need to resist this firmly, but at the
same time we need to learn from our mistakes that have once again laid
us open to such an attempt. We need to move swiftly on reforms that will
strengthen the rights, the potentialities and the opportunities
available of all our people. We need to respond swiftly and forcefully
to all allegations, instead of letting these lie unanswered until they
are then accepted as gospel. We need to develop a solid constructive
foreign policy, and make sure that we pursue it with intelligence and
consistency, with proper training for all personnel serving abroad as
well as those interacting with the international community in Sri Lanka.
I should note that I have been immensely heartened by the little I
have noticed of our current Foreign Secretary in action. I am happy that
we are proceeding apace now with the Human Rights Action Plan that we
pledged three years ago, and I hope that we can move soon too on the
Bill of Rights that the President pledged in his first election
manifesto way back in 2005. We need to concentrate more on Human
Resources in the North and East, as well as for youngsters in deprived
areas.
Greater understanding
And we need greater understanding of the way the world works, instead
of obsequiousness to the rich and powerful at times, combined with
excessive reactions when we, suddenly as it seems, realize that they are
interested neither in us nor in morality, but only in their own
interests. We do not need to get angry with them about that, such
behaviour is natural, and has been the stuff of international relations
for years - but we need to know, and learn from them, the importance of
packaging. This should not be difficult, given that in comparison with
anyone else who has dealt with terrorism, we have a good story to tell -
but we should tell it, not wait to be threatened by default.
|