Strong pro-active system needed to counter detractors - Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe

by Shanika SRIYANANDA

The Secretary of the Ministry of Human Rights Prof. Rajiva Wijesinghe, in an interview with the Sunday Observer, said that the country needs to implement a strong pro-active system to be tough on people who are trying to be 'nasty' to Sri Lanka.

He said that the UN rapporteurstoires would make positive remarks about situations once they come to know the reality. "I don't think that they intended to make some controversial statements, but could not realise the difference between the Tamils and LTTE. Sri Lanka knows that Tamil citizens are basically very decent people while few LTTEers were monsters, but the West does not know this difference. Due to propaganda lots of Westerners think that Tamils means the LTTE", he said.

Disclosing the UN's decisions to send six of its officers who were young, earlier, Prof. Wijesinghe said: "In some cases I have not recommended to extend their visas as I don't think they are appropriate persons to represent the UN. They are immature to handle the issues in Sri Lanka.'

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: While Channel 4 has decided to probe into the fake video by having an investigation, still the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial or Summary or Arbitrary Executions Prof. Alston is of the view that the report was not impartial. Are we going to have a fresh study?

A: No. All what I can say is that Prof. Alston could have checked before making any comment on the video. I know he is bit eccentric, but honourable. When we were in Geneva last time some told us that he would not talk about certain things and he did not talk about that at the hall, but later on he gave a press conference outside. When they challenged him he said, "No I never said that". That is Alston and none can changed him.

When I asked about the video Navaneethan Pillai told us that she would not make a statement on the basis of the video and then Dr. Radhika Kumaraswamy told me that she would examine the video first.

Some are saying that the Channel 4 has helped us to clear the doubts about war crimes because people claimed that we have committed war crimes. So we were asking for evidence and now they have shown the video and we have proved it's a fake. In that sense Channel 4 has helped us to prove the truth.

With regard to Channel 4, very distinguished Britishers told me, "You don't take this seriously as they have lost their reputation. It was so funny because one time they try to be racists."

Another point is that the High Commissioner of Britain was asked to comment about the video during the program, but he had asked them to show the video before the program. But, Channel 4 had refused the request. They have told that they cannot show it to anybody.

The High Commissioner told me that the producer had come and talked to him, but nothing was mentioned about the video. Later he has arranged some meetings but Channel 4 had refused to come.

Channel 4 is dishonest, morally bankrupt and don't give the other side to talk. I told them if they can show the video against us give us a chance to talk.

What I can say is that Prof. Alston keeps on changing all the time and gets easily carried away with ideas.

Q: What are the steps taken by the Government to clear the damage caused by such propaganda with ulterior motives?

A: We know these things will prop up. What we have to do is implement a much stronger pro-active system where we need to be quite tough on people who are trying to be nasty on us. The comments of the special rapporteurs that visited the country are really helpful for us for future actions. They have criticized us with certain respect and we have briefed them about the real situation. Many of them have shown an interest in human rights in the country. Take the incident at Angulana where two young men were arrested and subsequently killed. One could say this was definitely a clear case of extra-judicial or summary of arbitrary execution. Why Prof. Alston is not interested about this case, because for him human rights violations are racial problems.

Again I am also disappointed that Prof. Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on Torture has not inquired about the abduction and apparent torture of the SLIIT student. However, unlike his peers, Prof. Nowak has not confined to incidents relating to the struggle of the Government against terrorists and has regularly reported cases of alleged torture islandwide.

Prof. Nowak had very rightly pointed out that most of our torture cases happen in the South of the country. It is not that our police is attacking poor Tamils or torturing Tamils.

The other action that we should take is holding regular press conferences to give the correct picture to the media and tackle any question in a transparent manner while being honest. Minister of Human Rights Mahinda Samarasinghe used to hold very productive press conferences earlier and it proved very effective.

Secondly, we have to accept that certain things are wrong and we should not try to go to deny every thing. We know that we are facing some problems with regard to IDPs and the Government wants always todo better for them.

We have to publicise the fact that over so many years of struggle not a single allegation was recorded against the military and the Sri Lanka Army has a 100 percent clean record on that.

Oneother thing is when there is an allegation we have to follow them and we are here to do that. Prompt reaction is vital to face any allegation.

Two weeks ago, the Swedish Embassy had made a statement that there are allegations of 'ill-treatment by the Government's forces, especially of women and children in the IDP camps'. So I asked them to give the reasons. We have to follow all these allegations. I asked them first, then sent a fax and an e-mail asking reasons to say so. if I don't get a reply I am going to write to the Swedish Embassy here demanding a clarification. I am also going to copy the letter to all the EU countries in Sri Lanka asking why they have not responded as this letter was issued on behalf of the EU countries.

Likewise, we must react to these allegations systematically and we mustn't react to little things. For aexample, if Dr. Kaelin claims that there are problems in Manik Farm, we shouldn't react because there are problems in these camps. But when they are telling that Tamils are being tortured by Sinhalese then we have to react warning them not to make these claims as these will create problems.

Q: The LTTE sympathizers with the blessings of the West are trying to charge Sri Lanka for war crimes. What is your comment?

A: It is a bit of nonsense. I think that the intelligent people in the West now have realised that if they go on and on about war crimes they will procure in the positive influence they could have. Our position is very clear. If the West tells us to 'resettle the IDPs soon', we will say 'yes we will try'.

The India has done a wonderful impact on Sri Lanka by being very sympathetic by saying that India will never support terrorism but will encourage to support Tamils. Some of these good that India did in that respect has been destroyed by the Western countries by sympathizing the LTTE. I don't think that they intended to that but they could not realise the difference between the Tamils and LTTE. Sri Lanka knows that Tamil citizens are basically very decent people while few LTTEers were monsters but the West doesn't know this difference. Due to propaganda, lots of Westerners think that Tamils means the LTTE.

When Minister Douglas Devananda spoke they could not believe him. They were surprised to see a Tamil politician in the Sri Lankan delegation and this is purely due to LTTE propaganda. In that way, the West got to realise that war crimes are something that not only upset us but creates an opposition. We know there is a need to improve our human rights. But we do not want to be told by anybody that our human rights is bad because of the war. The war was fought in a much better basis.

What I saw when I was in Geneva conference last time, there was much more lesser aggression and Ambassador Dayan Jayatilake's approach was perfect. He had a very good rapport with Asia, Africa, South America and the East and he accepted the need of improving the human rights. The Indians and Pakistanis commended about the resettlement process.

Q: What is your view on the UN rapporteurs frequently visiting Sri Lanka?

A: Once they really understand about the country's situation and the Government's efforts to solve the problems they don't make nasty statements. To me rapporteurs of water, health and sanitation, should really address the issues related to their fields. I have written to the officer in-charge of sanitation asking to do something about the terrible toilet facilities at IDP camps. These toilets were put up by the UN sub-contractors but were not upto the mark. I found that senior UN rapporteurs do not make such statements.

Q: What was the outcome of the recent visit of Dr. Walter Kaelin?

A: His report was good and very positive. He has done two things; one is that he has accepted that we have security concerns and the second is that he has recommended to look into the human rights immediately. These are good points.

In Sri Lanka lots of things get delayed. Instead of saying that we will do it at our time schedules, we have to do it quickly. Of course we don't have to do it to their times. If they tell us to do it tomorrow we can't do as we have our security concerns. But within the framework we have a responsibility to resettle them and de-mining as soon as possible. Dr. Kaelin was very impressed by the de-mining process. We don't say that we can't resettle them soon but we cannot take the responsibility if a single mine causes damage.

Q: But some of these top UN officers have double-handed policies where they praise us here but make controversial statements at important forums. Why, and is there a conspiracy against Sri Lanka in the UN?

A: No. I don't agree. No one has changed their views about us later. I know that John Holems had a major problem, but he became very good after that. Then he gave an interview to a private media which he had promised not to do. Later, he told us that one remark that he had made was taken out of context. Then we asked him why did he gave the interview.

Later the same thing happened with Louise Arbour. She was to give a private interview and she had arranged it after she promised not to. Fortunately Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe had stopped it.

What these officials don't know is why their staffers had arranged the interviews. I do not think that the UN senior people are doing these. The UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon is a great gentleman. When these officials politely ask us to do things we must also respond to them.

Ban-Ki-Moon once talked about war crimes and it was wrong. But after that he had never said anything wrong but he asked us to do things to improve the conditions. Pillai had once released her statement without consulting us. We had objected and after that she released the truth. Later, we found that one of her staff had done that.

Q: Do you mean to say that there are LTTE sympathizers within the UN?

A: Let me put it this way. Lots of the younger people in the West don't know better. Secondly, in the period between 2002 and 2005 we also encouraged to talk to the LTTE. I don't mean there was any wrong in that as we wanted to civilize the LTTE. Lots of people got into that mindset and even now some people think that the UN must have the balance between the LTTE and the Government.

This had misled lots of young people. We had about six examples where the UN had planned to send away their young officers who were immature to handle the issues in Sri Lanka. Some such officers are still here, but I believe that they could have been sent a long time ago. We have cancelled their visas as they are quite immature officers. In some cases, I have not recommended to extend the visas as I don't think they are not the appropriate persons to represent the UN.

Q: There are mounting domestic and international criticisms on sheltering the IDPs. They accused the government of detaining them without their consent and also with less facilities. What do you have to say about these allegations?

A: We know that the IDP camps are overcrowded. There are bad conditions in some areas. I think these allegations were propped up because of the initial plan which was unnecessarily elaborated. They assumed that the relatively comfortable facilities that were proposed were designed to keep the displaced in captivity for a very long period.

I have read those criticisms and when I actually saw the conditions in these camps where the IDPs have much more comfortable lives during my visits I was really surprised.

When nearly 280,000 IDPs came out, the UN funding agencies said that they can feed and look after these people for only three months. When we asked what will happen after three months they said that they can upgrade the conditions. But some of the NGOs, not the UN, have asked not to upgrade the facilities but to send them back. But even if we have sent half, another half will be there. So, that is why we also believed that the conditions in the camps should improve and we have been telling the UN that you have an obligation under international law to upgrade the facilities of these camps. That is what the UNHCR's Amin Avad was telling us too. He has promised us to do so.

We agree with Kaelins recommendation to be 'quick' in resettling these people. He also makes a very important point that when there is a delay in resettling people, there can be unnecessary incidents as the sleeping LTTEers would try to arouse the people. That is why he also recommended to us to expedite the resettlement process soon considering the security concerns.

Q: It is said that over 20,000 IDPs have already fled the camps and there are LTTE suspects among them. Is it true?

A: I don't how this number came up. We know that a certain number has got away. The military had confirmed this and confirmed that they have caught a couple of them trying to escape. Some of those who have helped to smuggle the IDPs are NGO workers.

We also know that some workers in different departments working there were bribed and had helped to smuggle them out. It is not a serious problem but we have now increased security at these camps.

Q: Why doesn't the government release the IDPs who have their kith and kin willing to shelter them?

A: To release these IDPs we have two things. One is the security concerns and we need to check the whereabouts of their relatives. In some occasions the IDPs have given the addresses in the East but they are false addresses. Some were pretending that they were from Jaffna but later we found that they were from the East. Therefore, we have to check the addresses of their kith and kin before releasing them and it will take time but it could be quicker.

The Government's priority is security and we do not want to experience an IDP crisis as in other countries. We have handled the IDPs fairly well and we want to resettle them soon.

Q: But some have criticised the idea of setting up transit camps.

A: The Government wanted to send them directly from East to North, Jaffna and to Mannar. But the issue of false addresses came up and now we want to double check the addresses that they gave. Even Kaelin agreed with the problem but told 'don't do the checking for too long'. He said that if the IDPs are sending to a transit for a week it's ok but keeping them for two months is too much.

Q: UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe demanded the Wanni IDPs should be granted freedom of movement. What are the obstacles to consider this demand?

A: Of course we are moving on to do that but we have to be careful because as I said earlier due to security reasons. This is very important and the second factor is that we don't want people vanishing into the town and becoming a burden. What we want is to send Jaffna people to Jaffna, where they could easily find their livelihood.

Q: The Government boasts of a 180-day speedy resettlement program for the IDPs. Why does it go at a snail's pace?

A: I have asked the same question as I got in here first. But remember it is not 80-days but 180-days. When look at the Eastern resettlement process it was done very quickly but it was done at the end. If 100 people are to be settled within 100 days it is just one percent of the total and 90 per cent went in the last days.