OPINION: She hasn’t changed a bit

by Rajpal Abeynayake

Essentially, the prejudicial views of Navanethem Pillay the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights do not seem to have changed one bit, despite her fact finding mission to Sri Lanka last week. Apart from brief but nodding acknowledgements that there is reconstruction and that there are investigations on the Contra la Femme aid worker killings and the murders of five students in Trincomalee, her press conference statement contained a litany of negative observations, capped by her sweeping statement that ‘there are many factors impeding normalisation which if not quickly rectified – may sow the seeds of future discord. These are by and large to do with the curtailment and denial of personal freedoms and human rights, or connected to the persistent impunity and rule of law,’ she said.

She said she is deeply concerned that Sri Lanka despite the opportunity provided by the end of terrorism to construct a new vibrant and all embracing state, is showing signs of ‘heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction.’ Her allegations true to previous practice, have been totally unsubstantiated and preposterously off mark.

She stated yesterday for instance that more than 30 journalists are believed to have been killed since 2005, which is such a blatant falsehood that it beggars belief the Human Rights Commissioner was in any way the recipient of such grossly absurd - wholly incorrect - information.

The truth in fact is that not a single journalist had been killed since 2005, though there were alleged attacks on newspaper offices.

The stark distance between reality and her sweeping statements in her ‘opening statement’ at the press conference shows the extent of her prejudice and her lack of rigour, and is a glaring indicator of the fact that she came with preconceived notions, and wrote much of that opening statement probably, as some observed, before she set foot in Sri Lanka.

She makes more wild allegations and sweeping statements in her opener, though occasionally allowing that she had been greeted with ‘warmth and hospitality.’

With regard to the positive steps that have been taken in governance and rule of law areas, she has more criticism than appreciation, for example saying that the Disappearances Commission, newly appointed, will not look into ‘white van disappearances’ and that the new move to transfer ‘police powers’ from the newly created Ministry of Law and Order is at best representative of a partially positive step.

She stresses that this is at best ‘a partial separation’ as both Ministries (defence and the new Law and Order Ministry) will be under the President.

Her relentless pursuit of an independent and credible investigation on accountability issues as she says, ends up with her offering that there are bound to be calls for international inquiries if there is no credible national process to investigate ‘allegations of civilian casualties’.

She also says that persons that made representations to her on this visit were questioned by the security forces personnel. She is unwilling to accept that most of these ‘complaints’ are motivated maliciously by interested parties.

She speaks as usual in broad generalisations and stated that two priests some journalists and ‘many ordinary civilians’ have been thus harassed, the broad generalisations seeming to indicate that she has not jettisoned her practice of coming to conclusions on the basis of malicious inputs from diaspora led groups and other disruptors with partisan interests.

When asked for instance whether she investigated the charge that the Sri Lankan delegation to Geneva Human Rights Council sessions in 2012 intimidated human rights defenders or whether she reached her conclusions on spurious complaints made, she said the UNHRC officials did their own investigations; however, the Sri Lankan delegation was never rigorously quizzed in such an ‘investigation to their side of the story.’

She repeatedly said that democracy has been undermined and the ‘rule of law eroded’ despite defeating LTTE terrorism. She cited the promulgation of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and weakening of checks and balances on the executive, not pausing to state a word about the fact that LTTE cadres were rehabilitated, that they were integrated into mainstream society, that they have been given jobs, or that the army has been involved in rehabilitation efforts rebuilding the north and the east whose infrastructure development even she acknowledged is impressive.

She speaks as if all of this was materialized with the wave of a magic wand, and that the army played no positive part in these developments. In all, Pillay’s opening statement, and her continued harangue about accountability for the Sri Lankan forces alone - though she does play lip service to ‘LTTE atrocities’ - indicates that she came with a prejudiced mind, and is leaving with a prejudiced mind.

She probably thought of the visit in some way as an opportunity to give credence to her preconceived judgments, and nothing else.