Western agenda comes into sharp focus
The Western agenda came into sharp focus
with the controversial remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Navaneetham Pillay at the end of her week-long tour of Sri Lanka last
weekend.
Though she made a desperate attempt to prove that her conduct as the
UNHRC chief is neutral and transparent by claiming that she began her
tour of Sri Lanka with an open mind without prejudice, the cat was out
of the bag during her final news conference.
It is crystal clear that her statement at the last press conference
was carefully worded. While trying to debunk the widely-believed
allegation that she is a Tiger sympathiser labelling the LTTE as a
ruthless terrorist organisation, she overstepped her mandate as the UN
Human Rights Chief saying that the Government is heading in an
increasingly authoritarian direction.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Pillay had transgressed her mandate
and the basic norms which should have been observed by a discerning
international civil servant, by making a political statement.
It also runs contrary to the many assertions, the High Commissioner
made about the unfettered access she was provided. The freedom people
enjoy today compared to her last visit to Sri Lanka in 2000 and the
vibrant political debates and election campaigns which she witnessed and
acknowledged reflected the political pluralism enjoyed by the people of
Sri Lanka.
It goes without saying that the judgment on the leadership of the
country is better left for the people of Sri Lanka to decide, rather
than being caricatured by extraneous forces influenced by vested
interests. Does she have the right to give a political twist to her
visit by passing judgment on the political leadership of the country,
which had received an overwhelming mandate from the masses at successive
elections?
It is an open secret how Pillay made sweeping statements that
pampered the LTTE during Sri Lanka's 2006-2009 battle against terrorism.
Knowing only too well that it is a conflict of interest on a person who
has roots in South India to pass international judgments on Sri Lanka,
Pillay labelled the LTTE as a terror outfit and that there should be no
place for the glorification of such a ruthless organisation.
What is most baffling are Pillay's double standards which are not in
keeping with the status of a person who holds the high office as the UN
human rights chief. The wily efforts by her delegation to pay a floral
tribute at Mullivaikkal where the LTTE leadership was vanquished by the
Security Forces in May, 2009 came a cropper.
If Pillay and her OHCHR delegation wished to pay tribute to those who
had perished during the LTTE's three decades of terror, it should have
been done at a venue common to all victims and certainly not at the spot
where LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran met his waterloo.
At no point of time when the UNHRC chief's itinerary was drawn up,
that a visit to Mullivaikkal was indicated. When the unscheduled visit
was brought to the notice of the local authorities, within a matter of
hours, it was duly turned down by the Government. More intriguingly, it
became evident that the UN Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka, who
represents the UN Secretary General, was unaware of such an event being
planned. On the other hand, it is clear that international media
coverage for the controversial event had been arranged behind closed
doors with three international television agencies invited directly from
Geneva by the spokesperson of the High Commissioner, well in advance of
her arrival in Sri Lanka. This amply demonstrates the selective
manipulation of the media in Sri Lanka.
Pillay's unbecoming conduct in Sri Lanka also included an unscheduled
meeting with a prominent Christian priest in Trincomalee. Her pow-wow
with Rev. Fr. Y. Yogeshwaran, a prominent human rights activist of a
non-governmental organisation, Jesuits Academy-Foundation for Nonviolent
Communication, at Inner Harbour Road, Trincomalee, was made known to her
local security personnel only at the eleventh hour.
Though the UN had always waxed eloquent on national reconciliation
after the dawn of peace, Pillay's abominable conduct seems to be an
attempt to dig into old wounds and rob Sri Lanka of its hard-earned
peace. It would have been far better had she given more recognition to
the Government's efforts to usher in a better tomorrow for the people in
the North and the East. Although the Government has spent approximately
USD three billion on reconstruction and rehabilitation in the North and
the East, the international community seems to be reluctant to
acknowledge the development efforts for reasons best known to them.
If one were to carefully analyse the incomprehensible conduct of
Pillay during her stay in Sri Lanka and what she had told the final news
conference, it is abundantly clear that she had toured Sri Lanka with a
hidden agenda.
The West is hell-bent on having a Government here which would dance
the fandango round it. It does not favour the national leadership which
does not fall in line with it. Western elements with vested interests
are doing their damnedest for a regime change in Sri Lanka so that they
could have a leader who could be remote-controlled from Washington.
As Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa has pointed out, certain
Western powers yearn to have a Sri Lankan Government that is closely
aligned with its interests and may seek to influence the country's
destiny. They also seek to influence Sri Lanka's destiny so that it
would not pursue the independent course it is now following.
The interim report she produced is indicative of a prejudiced mind
and in no way shows the fairness and open-mindedness of an official
undertaking such a mission, the longest she has spent in any country.
Pillay acknowledges progress and positive developments half-heartedly.
What is disturbing is the tone and substance of her report and the lack
of fairness and balance.
Pillay has no empirical evidence whatsoever to support her claim that
Sri Lanka is moving towards authoritarianism. Perhaps, this had been a
statement that Pillay had planned even prior to her arrival in Sri
Lanka.
People in Sri Lanka had elected four governments and four presidents
under the present Constitution. Elections to various bodies had been
held almost every six months, thereby permitting people to exercise
their democratic right. Most importantly, the masses had reposed
implicit faith in President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government at
successive elections.
The leadership of President Rajapaksa and the UPFA Government have
been increasingly endorsed by the public demonstrating their deep
confidence in the government. This, no doubt, is the essence of a
vibrant democracy - permitting people to express their views freely. The
democratic right of people in the North, which had been suppressed by
the LTTE through the bullet has been restored. They exercised their
franchise at the last Local Government election in the North. But
strangely the UN Human Rights Commissioner had turned a blind eye to it.
The prejudice and lack of fair-mindedness was further shown in her
talk of numerous alleged war crimes. Pillay also made references to the
presence of the military in the North and the fear instilled in the
people and women there. This runs contrary to the UN officials' reports
in Colombo who belie this claim, having themselves interviewed over 200
people, chosen by the UN itself, 90 percent of whom said that they were
comfortable with the living conditions there. Why does Pillay turn a
blind eye to such evidence produced by the UN itself? What is her
justification to ignore such positive reports by the UN mission in
Colombo?
Countries should be objective when viewing Sri Lanka and moreover,
the voting pattern in the UN Human Rights Council which did not seem to
be based on the merits of the case, is highly questionable. Pillay's
initial report lacked the fairness, open mindedness and balance that
were expected of her.
The UN human rights body should by no means be used as a platform to
intimidate countries which do not fall in line with what the West dishes
out.
Sri Lanka has a fearless leadership which does not sing hosannas to
the West, but only works for the betterment of the people who elected
them. The democratically elected leadership in Sri Lanka is only
accountable to the people who voted for them and not the LTTE
sympathisers who had elected certain Western politicians elsewhere.
President Rajapaksa's political sagacity has won true friends across
the globe who would stand tall and protect Sri Lanka from all
overwhelming odds.
|