Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

Sri Lanka is disturbed by the intervention of a single Non-Governmental Organization that detracted from the generally high standard of debate under this Item in pursuing its relentless vendetta against the Sri Lankan state. In the present context of seeking reconciliation however it seems best not to respond in kind, but instead to discuss in this context some of the contextual issues raised by some countries.

In particular Mr President we need to consider the issue of Freedom of Expression, which we all see as one of the most important Rights we should encourage and protect. We were struck by the presentation of the distinguished representative from Norway, who noted its importance but commented that this freedom had to be limited in the case of incitements to hatred. Unfortunately what constitutes such incitement is not easy to distinguish.

We also need to consider the impact of freedom of expression when exercised without responsibility. Some time back we were astonished when International Educational Development Inc made a passionate defence of the use of children over 14 in combat. Such statements could be defended in terms of the right to freedom of expression, but when such wicked ideas are translated into practice it is the vulnerable who suffer.

Thus we found it deeply depressing that those members of the international community functioning in areas controlled by terrorists kept quiet about the fact that the Tigers recruited first one, and then even a second, member of each family. But it would seem that the ruthlessness of terrorists was enough of a barrier then to the free expression that might have saved children, whilst conversely those who advocated child recruitment could propagate their wicked ways even in this august assembly.

Conversely, whilst upholding the right to free expression, we should be careful about encouraging downright falsehoods. Sadly the historic basis of European morality, the Ten Commandments, now seems to have gone by the board. Despite the experience of the horror of witch hunts, the bearing of false witness seems to be positively encouraged, especially against those who seem distant or easily othered.

Perhaps nothing can be done about those who actually tell lies for partisan purposes. But it is regrettable that such utterances are taken up and propagated by those who should be more circumspect. We request then that support for freedom of expression should not lead to support for utterances that promote hatred and enmity, without attention to questions of evidence or credibility.

Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

Sri Lanka appreciates the concerns about Sri Lanka expressed by countries participating in this debate and records its appreciation, with regard to our efforts to recover from the damage caused by terrorism, of the support and assistance of our neighbours and friends who stood by us in our struggle whilst affirming their concern for an inclusive solution to our problems.

We note the importance in the process of recovery of respect for

a) Basic principles of human rights along with the basic principles of law

b) National security concerns

c) National reconciliation on the basis of democracy and pluralism

Balancing these concerns in the struggle against terror was not easy but we believe we succeeded better than most. We welcome support for our future efforts when it is based on understanding of these concerns, and in particular assistance for the resettlement of the displaced which we see as a priority. The civilized manner in which concerns in this regard were expressed in this debate was heartening, and we are grateful too for the support of countries such as Japan and the United States for the demining programme which is a much larger task than is sometimes understood.

Whilst we understand concerns for those currently in welfare centres, it should be noted that security concerns for them as for the country at large cannot be underestimated. In a context in which ruthless conscription took place we cannot be too careful. None of the agencies working in areas under terrorist control stood up for the people who had to give one and then two members of their families, and it is that legacy of neglect that we need now to overcome. Thus, while the administration of the centres is in civilian hands, we must ensure security so that terrorism cannot resume its insidious work and subject Sri Lanka to another round of corrosive destruction.

With regard to conditions in the camps, we agree that better use could be made of funds that have been generously provided, and in this context, attached as an appendix to the written version of this response, is the text of the representation sent to the UN Independent Expert on Water and Sanitation regarding current neglect of basic sanitation standards.

In the process of reconciliation we would draw attention to the elections held recently in which several political parties, including those previously in thrall to terrorism, participated freely. We urge those who share our hopes for reconciliation to promote such democratic forces without indulging those who still hanker after Tiger supremacy. Our people should not have to go through yet another struggle against terror, and whilst we sympathize with those subject to intense political lobbying, we urge a distinction between, on the one hand, a rights based approach that supports a swift return to normality, and on the other rejuvenation in a different but potentially equally dangerous form of those who funded and advocated on behalf of terrorist excesses.

Appendix – Neglect of basic sanitation standards

Memo sent to the Independent Expert on Water and Sanitation

When the Welfare Centres were first established, the government tried to set up model facilities. This led to the suspicion that they were intended to be permanent structures, and therefore international agencies laid stress on the temporary nature of the facilities they would provide.

They insisted therefore that emergency assistance was for facilities intended for a three month period and that, if they were needed for a longer period, then they would be upgraded. Emphasis therefore was on very basic facilities, which it was assumed could self destruct after a few months.

One example of the relatively shoddy nature of the facilities provided was the type of tent provided in bulk in April when over 100,000 persons escaping from the LTTE came to Vavuniya. Instead of the tarpaulin covered shelters that UNHCR had described, these people were provided with very low tents, some of which clearly need replacement now. Government has also had to insist on the covered centres for relaxation, which were promised at the time, but were forgotten so that the displaced had to shelter under trees during the day.

The worst area of sub-standard facilities however was that of sanitation. Without consulting the relevant Sri Lankan authorities, nor abiding by national standards, UNICEF commissioned a number of international NGOs, which seem to have no understanding of Sri Lankan requirements, to build toilets. Albeit at comparatively high cost, they put in toilets with pits made of plywood.

These soon began to disintegrate. When the matter was finally taken up by the authorities, and reminders given of national standards, which involved either cement or fibre glass pits, the NGOs argued long and hard and finally obtained a concession to the effect that they could use hard wood. However specifications were also given about the need for soakage pits on the water seal system to minimize wear and tear.

The specifications continued to be ignored. Some agencies insisted on using plywood, claiming that they had some still in stock. Soakage pits were not thought of. Shoddy construction continued in new blocks too, even while the toilets in the old blocks were collapsing. Some of these have been under repair since June, and the Head of UNICEF pledged that agencies responsible for constructions that had to be replaced would provide replacements at their own expense, but this has not been done.

The toilet pits built by Sri Lankan NGOs, and also by the army in an area in which UNICEF refused to help, have lasted, but those in for instance Block 4 began to collapse in much less than three months. A visit a couple of weeks back revealed gaping holes through which sewage and water could be seen.

The UNHCR site expert claimed that some damage had been done to the pits because of widening of drains, but this seemed a shoddy excuse, given that the wood had disintegrated on all sides and on top. He also admitted that, in the course of gully sucking (which the UN now claims must be done more often), plywood did disintegrate, but the remedy was to limit the gully sucking and leave a residue. This would of course lead to even more frequent gully sucking being essential.

Sadly the self-destructing toilets are being used for propaganda purposes by those who wish to empty the welfare centres immediately. UNICEF could not, at the last meeting, provide a schedule of damaged toilets, and plans for repair or replacement, even though they had been asked for this. Instead they allow their neglect to lend strength to the claim that the Welfare Centres cannot continue.

While clearly it is desirable to expedite returns and ensure decongestion, it was clearly impossible from the start to ensure that all the displaced would leave Centres within three months. The culpable neglect of national standards and the basic dignity of the displaced should not be excused on the grounds that it would promote a political agenda that may in itself seem praiseworthy. Such neglect threatens the health as well as the comfort of the displaced, and the problems it has led to should be dealt with promptly.

Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

Sri Lanka regrets the disinformation purveyed by some Non-Governmental Organizations in the course of the debate on Item 4 of the Agenda of the Human Rights Council. Sadly we seem to have abandoned traditional values, or rather Christian values and the Ten Commandments, but the Prophet Moses would surely have spanked, if only metaphorically, those organizations that persistently bear False Witness as part of their relentlessly vindictive campaign against the Sri Lankan State.

To deal with just a few areas of disinformation, we are sorry that there are so many allegations of violations of international law, with no specific details. Sri Lanka is committed to investigating any credible, nay any plausible, allegations, but if the only thing those who persist in criticizing us have come up with, over nine long months, is the Channel 4 video, it seems clear that we can take pride in the record of our armed forces. That video seems to have taken in only Prof Philip Alston, which suggests that our forces have done better throughout than many others who have combated terror.

In this context we welcome the assurance of the Swedish delegation that they will provide us with the reasons for their claim – on behalf of so many countries – of allegations of ill-treatment by government forces of women and children in the welfare centres. It is odd but not surprising that such allegations should have reached Scandinavia, when my Ministry, which is responsible for Protection issues, has been told that there seems to have been no basis even for such allegations by United Nations agencies and those Non-Governmental Organizations they have sub-contracted at great cost to look after such matters with funds kindly donated for the benefit of our citizens. Needless to say, these are issues we monitor, and lead on in suggesting mechanisms for ensuring better psycho-social support for the vulnerable.

Again, we find strange the allegation that humanitarian assistance to the camps is restricted. Last evening I was going through the various projects funded by the Common Humanitarian Action Plan, and there is no shortage of agencies working in the camps. However we could not permit unlimited access after there was evidence of vehicles taking people surreptitiously out of the camps. We have agreed on guidelines for access based on security as well as other considerations, and meanwhile we are trying to ensure greater accountability and effectiveness with regard to the funds so generously donated. Shortcomings with regard to toilet facilities etc have been pointed out, and we owe it to our people to make sure that they receive the best possible facilities for the funding available.

Finally, in discussion of the case of Mr Tissainayagam, it has been suggested that this is only about freedom of expression. It is regrettable that there is no recognition of the fact that he accepted funding from a terrorist movement. In his confession it is suggested that he tried to resist this, and only accepted funding under pressure but, while this may be a mitigatory factor, such financial involvement with terror cannot be ignored. Since the case is still under review I cannot comment further, but it should be noted that, for several years, there was constant provision of funds from Western donors for anti-government websites etc including those of the Tigers. This may have been provided initially in good faith, when it was hoped that the terrorists would change to democratic practices, but when that did not happen there should have been greater circumspection. At least now there should be remorse for support for information networks that promoted suicide killings from which our country suffered so much.

Such factors cannot be forgotten, Mr President, as we strive to recover from the terrorism that beset us, and build a better more inclusive future.

Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

Sri Lanka welcomes the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the requested follow up to the management review of the Office of the High Commissioner. The Report makes it clear that follow up has in fact been minimal. Recalling that the Review took place in 2003, one is reminded of Yeats’ Wild Swans at Coole, sailing complacently in their shining white plumage across yet another lake. This Council needs therefore to work swiftly and purposefully if another generation is not to see the same swans twenty years later.

The Report, Mr President, indicates a mindset that concentrates on the problems of the influential few, at the expense of the more pressing concerns of the rest of the world. Though the description of the composition of staff begins with a table of geographical distribution, this is for all staff Conversely the table for gender balance is broken down by levels too, and the Review highlights imbalance in both senses it claims, at particular levels.

It is not clear what is meant by both senses, but perhaps comfort is taken in the fact that the imbalances balance out as it were. This is not the case with regard to geographical distribution, with regard to which concern seems to be lacking. Cursory calculation however reveals that that wonderful category called Western Europe and other enjoys 66% of P-5 staff, 63% of P-4, 55% of P-3 and 50% of P-2.

It is not clear therefore why the Report declares that ‘the Inspector realized that the issue of geographic distribution of Professional staff does not warrant the attention it receives’. So too there is no comment about the fact that the number of staff in the best beloved category went up by 18 in 2008 and, though the percentage is down, clearly no account was taken of the suggestion regarding the introduction of a temporary maximum level on such recruitment.

More worryingly, the Report seems to justify what might be termed a self-perpetuating cartel, in addressing concerns as to the mobility and career development of those in service. Even more seriously the claims of those who are funded by the elite for continuing employment seem to be promoted in the Report, which suggests that the original recommendations will soon be superseded by partisan considerations.

Finally Mr President, given that this Council should encourage diversity, there is also a case for providing statistics about the provenance of new entrants. A disturbing trend in recent years has been the symbiotic relationship between UN staff, who should be serving member states, and non-governmental organizations, some of which continue to shroud the origins of their finances and their outlay in mystery. Given the need to ensure improvements through cooperation with governments, there is surely a case too for ensuring greater recruitment from those who have worked in fields where public accountability is the norm.

Sri Lanka hopes therefore that the next Report will present its statistics more consistently and indicate more forceful steps to ensure that there will be progress on previous recommendations, rather than a catalogue of reasons as to why movement is so painfully slow.

18 September 2009

Rajiva Wijesinha   Secretary General   Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

The international community was horrified by news reports in the Times of London on July 9^th 2009 that over 1400 people were dying each week in Welfare Centres in Sri Lanka. The Times continues to conceal its sources. This time the allegation is attributed to ‘Senior international aid figures’, though the figure was decried as ‘Ridiculous’ by the UN Resident Coordinator in Colombo.

 An even more ‘senior international aid figure’ Sir John Holmes was even more contemptuous of sensationalistic journalism, when he pointed out that Sri Lanka had won a war which many foreign journalists had come out to cover, and therefore they had to produce something, to justify themselves.

 Thus the Channel 4 stories of rape and sexual abuse and the Guardian Chamberlain assertion that 13 women had been found with short haircuts and slit throats. The Times however has gone further than all these, in conducting a sustained vitriolic campaign against the Sri Lankan government with no regard for either truth or logic. Their use of language too, though skilful, exemplifies their determination to distort, as when they tried to attribute to the UN their claim that there had been over 20,000 civilian deaths during the conflict against the Tigers. And they are obviously terrified of anyone who might contradict them, for they said falsely, in a wholly fraudulent article on May 21^st, that ‘The Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, which set up the camps, did not return calls asking for comment yesterday’.

 I then wrote to the Editor as follows – ‘In the first place, this Ministry is not responsible for setting up the camps, though we are responsible for protection issues in them. Secondly, May 20^th was a public holiday, so perhaps you could ask your correspondent which number he called, at which he left a message asking for comment on his story. You should also ask him why he did not call me on my mobile, on which another correspondent of yours interviewed me at length in February, only to produce a report very different from that of the Indian correspondent who was in my room at the time and listened to the interview.

 The substance of the article indicates why your correspondent feared to contact either me or my Minister, who tells me he was called up on the 21^st, and answered queries on this subject, well after you had gone to print.

 Of course I did not get a reply, and the Times absolutely refused to meet me when I was in England a couple of weeks later, though four other newspapers found time for me at short notice. Channel 4 and Sky News also dodged, though the BBC kindly slotted me in. But refusal to allow access is of course a well known dodge, which the Times attributes to its enemies whilst sedulously practicing this itself.

 In short, the Times gets away with lies and refusal to engage or discuss when they come across someone who actually knows what is going on. But such cowardice is understandable in view of the scattershot way they produce arguments.

 Initially they declared that they had got to a figure of 20,000 by adding – to the 7,000 they claimed the UN had reported from the beginning of the year until April – an average of 1000 a day for the first couple of weeks in May. This begged the question that the 7,000 had only been found in what were claimed to be leaks from the UN, and that nowhere else were there allegations of 1000 deaths a day in May. Indeed the Tamilnet accounts, which would generally present what might be termed the worst case scenario, alleged far fewer casualties.

 Later the Times changed its story to claim that the figure of 20,000 was based on extrapolations from the number of bodies brought in to health centres, though they also noted that they multiplied the actual bodies brought in by five or so to reach their figure of 20,000.

 Now, six weeks later, assuming their readers would have forgotten their earlier pitiful justifications, with Sir John Holmes also categorically rejecting the sleight of hand by which they had sought to associate the UN with their lies, they have yet another explanation for their nonsensical assertion. This time they declare that ‘Subsequent aerial photographs of beach graves, revealed in The Times, suggested that the figure was more than 20,000.’

 So they now admit that their first mathematical calculations, based on a fraudulent UN figure for four months with a whimsical average for two weeks thereafter was nonsense. They also doubtless hope that no one will notice that the aerial photographs they rely on are of beach graves, whereas most of the fighting before May took place far away from that beach.

 They also admit that their next exercise in mathematical fraud, multiplying bodies they themselves never saw to reach the number they first thought of, was also a lie. How the beach graves they revealed amount to the figure they now only suggest is not explained. Instead that figure will simply become a statistic to lurk behind their latest lie, 1,400 deaths a week in the camps, amounting to over 15,000 now if they started counting from the time of the great exodus, when the Sri Lankan forces managed to rescue over 100,000 of those held by the Tigers.

 No wonder then that one senior Sri Lankan journalist said, ‘I have serious doubts over the latest statements. What we’re seeing is that the LTTE (the Tigers) and the Times are in some respects mirror images of each other.’ Senior incidentally is one of the words the Times uses when it wants to pretend that someone who said what it wanted said is in fact respectable. They trot out phrases like senior journalist and senior international aid worker to clothe their nakedness, hoping that then other papers will take up the claim and ignore that the only evidence for the bizarre lies the Times produces is the fertile imagination of Times journalists.

 Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

The above headline is clearly an exaggeration, but it is based on the style of reporting adopted recently by the Times of London in its coverage of Sri Lanka. Following its extraordinary assertion, at the end of May, that over 20,000 had been killed in the conflict area, it seemed necessary to examine the motives behind such whopping untruths. The investigation revealed a culture of secretiveness and propagandist zeal that is not of course novel, given the role that some newspapers have played in the past in supporting British adventurism, as instigated by particular political parties.

An expedition to London found that the Times itself was unwilling to provide access. Like Channel 4, which had been equally fraudulent, it kept its doors tight shut. However four other journals and two TV channels were more open, and provided some explanation of the deceit practiced by the Times.

 ‘The Times is in the pocket of New Labour,’ said one senior journalist. ‘They get all their material from the Foreign Office.’

 Another journalist speculated that the British Foreign Office was furious at the own goal it had achieved in Geneva, when its efforts to instigate a Special Session against Sri Lanka, and then to have a critical resolution passed, backfired when the whole Third World combined to administer a stinging rebuke. Even the Americans had advised against such folly, but thinking that Britain had asserted its primacy with regard to South Asia over the new American administration, David Miliband had forged (that being the operative word) ahead.

Failure had then prompted a determination to take revenge, hence the unleashing of the Times.

Other commentators however opined that Foreign Office professionals had not been in favour of the move, and that more seasoned diplomats, though they had had to succumb to New Labour pressure, were pleased that the rebuke had allowed greater weight to more enlightened professional opinion. Their view was that positive engagement, based on British concern for Human Rights, but without any devious political agenda, which could also be seen as threatening to India, would achieve more in ensuring that Sri Lanka adhered to its traditional policy of neutrality. 

 Though for some weeks the saner minds in the Foreign Office had seemed to prevail, the latest effusion in the Times suggests that its handlers are once again champing at their own bits. Now the claim is that ‘about 1,400 people a week are dying at one of the big internment camps,’ This is attributed to ‘Senior international aid figures’, though as usual the Times is unwilling to name these mythical figures.

 The response of the UN Resident Coordinator to this claim was ‘Ridiculous’, and he could not even guess as to how the Times had arrived at this figure. It was possible he said that a zero had been added on, but even 140 was higher than the actual figure. Currently it averages under 5 deaths a day, while in the period from May 1^st it has been 618 altogether, with higher figures in May when there was an influx, just as there had been averages of over 10 a day in the first few days after the massive influx of April 20^th onward. These figures are well within the SPHERE norms for such situations.

 The Times, or perhaps its minders, who have we know smuggled in their agents in the guise of aid workers (at massive salaries, it should be noted, and relentlessly disruptive of the good work of most aid agencies), knows how to introduce figures by sleight of hand. The figures it now confidently attributes to the UN were leaked, and that from tentative extrapolations, and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes has made it clear that they were never formally issued because they were only estimates. Holmes went further in totally repudiating the Times claim about over 20,000 dead, when he said that it had no basis in anything said or recorded by the UN.

 In fact the Times had cleverly tried to insinuate that the UN was responsible for that figure by first citing the leaked UN figure of 7,000 for the first four months of the year, and then using a semi-colon (how Orwell would have relished that!) to assert that there was an average of 1,000 a day over the next two weeks. Some gullible papers had then claimed UN authority for the 20,000, though fortunately that canard has now been nailed, and when it recurs, generally only in the Times, it is now attributed to the Times alone.

 The reason for the current attack may be related to the admission of doctors who had been in the conflict area that they had lied about casualty figures under Tiger pressure. That this was happening had been evident at the time but, though the Sri Lankan government had noted this, the Times and its allies had cited such figures as gospel. It was only after the admission of the doctors that the Times finally noted that ‘It would be surprising if the Tigers, who were no slouches when it came to the manipulation of the media, had not attempted to modify the doctors’ testimonies’.

 This belated admission was made however only to claim that the Tigers and the Government are just like each other. What is bizarre is that, if the Times, albeit through a series of what are in effect self-effacing double negatives, grants that the Tigers got the doctors to make things up, it now blames the government for having the doctors issue a corrective. Such correctives would never have been necessary if the Times and its minders had made it clear from the start that the figures cited by the doctors under Tiger duress were unreliable.

 And, interestingly enough, even this concession seems to be missing from later versions of the article, since obviously nothing should take away from the assault on the government. After all the doctors had been brought into play over the 20,000 figure, even though it had nothing whatsoever to do with them. Any study of the chronology would have made that clear, but the Times assumes that its readers are not going to study anything, and that the bigger the lie, and the more diabolical the insinuation, the more likely it is that it will be repeated by gullible followers.

Thus the Times claims that ‘The United Nations found that more than 7,000 civilians were killed between January and May. Subsequent aerial photographs of beach graves, revealed in The Times, suggested that the figure was more than 20,000. World outrage embarrassed the Colombo Government. The doctors were swiftly arrested and nothing further was heard of them until Wednesday.’

 This ignores the fact that the ‘revelation’ in the Times, passed off as having UN authority, occurred at the end of the week in May in which the New Labour initiative in Geneva had so dismally failed. The doctors had been arrested over 10 days earlier, as they escaped the conflict zone together with thousands of other civilians when Tiger resistance finally collapsed, and the cadres stopped – to a great extent if not totally – firing on the fleeing masses they had held hostage for so long. This hostage taking, it should be noted, was with the connivance of the Times and its Tiger sympathizers (as described by senior Sri Lankan journalists) such as Marie Colvin. 

 Why does the Times love the Tigers so much, to the extent of suppressing initially and subsequently what they did with the doctors? Why does it hate the Sri Lankan government to the extent of telling ridiculous lies, as described by senior responsible aid officials? Why does it twist evidence and chronology, hell bent it seems on attacking the government with no regard for journalistic or even basic human ethics?

 The answer obviously lies in its political agenda. No wonder that a senior British diplomat, when told that a Conservative victory was anxiously awaited, said the sentiments were widely shared. A professional Foreign Office needs better leadership than it has now, it needs better agents than the Times in its current phase of amoral secretive falsehood. It is no wonder that other journalists said there was no reason to worry about the Times, since its circulation was very small. But still, as with Browning on Wordsworth, Byron on Venice, those who remember past glories can only weep at what the current management of the Times has done, in enslaving past glory to New Labour manipulation. To paraphrase the Times itself, ‘It would be surprising if New Labour, who are no slouches when it came to the manipulation of the media, had not attempted to pervert the reporting of the Times’.

 Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof Rajiva Wijesinha has written to The Toronto Star in response to its coverage of the decision to prevent Canadian politician Bob Rae from entering Sri Lanka last week. His letter is published below.
Michael Cooke,
Editor,
The Toronto Star

Dear Sir,

A recent article in your columns suggested that a letter from Irangani de Silva, the former head of the Sri Lanka United National Association of Canada (SLUNA), may have contributed to the decision to bar the Canadian politician Bob Rae from entering Sri Lanka.

In suggesting that de Silva has ‘a grudge against the federal Liberal party’, the paper fails to actually consider the reasons de Silva gave for asking that Rae not be permitted to enter Sri Lanka.

I myself have always believed that the more people who visit this country, and see the positive efforts we are making, the less prejudice there will be against us. However, I have realized that there are some people who will insist on being critical, because their preconceptions, or else their political agendas, are just too overwhelming to be affected by any facts.

Thus, while we found the British MPs who visited declaring that things were better than they expected, and the British Deputy Minister Mike Foster was also quite positive, Foreign Minister David Miliband continued on his blindly critical course despite all he saw and heard.

We do not know whether Bob Rae would have been like that, but I can quite understand why de Silva had no doubt that his visit would simply enhance his determination to attack.

Though initially I am sure that Rae’s interest in Sri Lanka was idealistic, based on his penchant for federalism, which he thought the panacea for all Sri Lanka’s ills, when he found a less malleable Sri Lankan Government he turned rabid in his critiques.

In February this year, following an article he wrote that was full of falsehoods, I wrote a response entitled ‘The devious self-righteousness of Bobby Rae’, which spelled out exactly how fraudulent were his arguments.

To quote a single paragraph from it – ‘Rae does record that the ‘Tigers were ruthless at killing their opponents in their own community’ and that they ‘use suicide bombers against civilians and recruit children into their army’ but he promptly goes on to claim some sort of justification for them in terms of their ‘support around the world’.

He privileges this by talking about ‘the sense of the Tamil people that they have never been able to find justice inside a failed state’, as though to uphold himself the idea that Sri Lanka is a failed state.’ The article may now be read in full on the online version of the London Free Press.

Bob Rae does not seem to have changed in the interval. De Silva’s letter referred to his demanding a probe into ‘an estimated 20,000 civilian deaths’, which is nonsensical. For a Member of Parliament to make such claims on the basis of the extrapolations of a newspaper that has been obviously biased against Sri Lanka is at best irresponsible, and fully justifies de Silva’s plea that he not be allowed to enter Sri Lanka.

Her assumption was that he would use his visit to claim authority for further exaggerations, and his record suggests that this was possible.

Following the article, I have been told of Canadians that Rae’s interest in Sri Lanka is based on political self interest and, while he sees himself as the moral arbiter of Sri Lankan actions, he did not intervene when a temple in Toronto was bombed, a restaurant was detroyed, and the lives of thousands of Canadians were inconvenienced for weeks when the main traffic arteries of Toronto were blocked by terrorists and their children in repetition of the manner in which the LTTE used children for their goals.

I was also informed, perhaps in the belief that as the former Leader of the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka I might otherwise be sympathetic to a Liberal, that Rae had been a member of the New Democratic Party, and had only jumped to the Liberals when it became clear that his premiership of Ontario had been a disaster, and he needed a new party if his political career were to continue.

Oddly enough, this was the second Canadian politician opposed to the Sri Lankan position I had come across who had jumped parties.

Still, Rae is now a highly regarded figure in the Canadian Liberal Party and we should clearly engage with him in an attempt to cure him of his prejudices.

I would assume that should initially have been done in Canada, and presumably our Mission in Canada, knowing his record, had engaged with him and tried to ensure that he would come with an open mind before they issued him with a visa.

Certainly our Consul in Toronto, who has engaged actively with the diaspora as well as the Canadian media, would have been able to gauge accurately his position, and could have advised both the High Commission, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Colombo about the situation.

While all that was taking place, de Silva was certainly entitled to put forward her point of view, and the authorities in Sri Lanka were also obliged to take it seriously, and set it against any other information they might have had on Rae from official sources in Canada.

Given the damage done by those who pronounce on Sri Lanka on the basis of what they present as eye witness understanding, we need obviously to be careful in the present context, given the demands being made to destabilize the situation, demands pressed assiduously by the rump of the Tigers whose capacity to lobby people like Rae cannot be doubted.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha  Secretary General  Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

16 June 2009

Having just written an article on the pronouncements of the so-called independent media, I was not entirely surprised to discover that the Associated Press had deliberately misrepresented my answer with regard to the winding up of the Commission of Inquiry into several cases of violence over the last few years. The article described the cases as those of human rights abuses, whereas they dealt with a number of high profile killings, including the murders of some politicians, most prominently that of the Sri Lankan Tamil Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar.

The journalist in question, having promised to take just a couple of minutes of my time, was evidently not satisfied with my initial comment when he asked for one. It was that I thought it a good thing that the reports on seven cases would now come out soon, and that possibly inquiry into others would be expedited through the normal process. He then claimed that the Chairman complained that the Commission had been closed down, and asked for comment on that.

I noted that what might be considered the more controversial cases had all been completed, and that cases such as the Kadirgamar murder, which the government obviously would want solved soon, had been omitted. Thus it could be hoped that, without the long process the Commission had gone through, the normal investigation into such a case, which had been delayed while the Commission sat, would now go ahead swiftly.

I did however note under further questioning that this was my view, and that I could not myself give the actual reason for the winding up since that was a decision of the President, this being a Presidential Commission of Inquiry, and he would need to ask him or his advisors for a precise answer. Needless to say, that answer was highlighted as though to suggest I was avoiding the question, whereas my actual comment was omitted.

Similarly the report totally misrepresented the Amnesty report on government commissions. Though purporting to deal with commissions over 25 years, it actually looked only at the current Commission. It did grant that previous commissions, which it did not discuss, had led to indictments, though it regretted the conviction rate. The claim of government ‘using bribes, threats and even murder to eliminate witnesses’ did not arise in that context since the conviction rate was no different from that of countries which Associated Press would not deem of indicting, as can be seen for instance with regard to the incomplete inquiry into Bloody Sunday or the single conviction with regard to Abu Ghraib, of all those charged.

In that context I should perhaps cite the report of what I said at the presentation in Geneva of the Amnesty Report, which notes elements the Associated Press would never cover in its adulation of such misleading reports as well as the ‘international panel of experts’ who were so harsh about the Commission which the Associated Press now regrets –

He welcomed what seemed the positive approach of most of the speakers, but noted what seemed a political agenda in one case, and said it was a pity that there had been much bad faith in criticisms of Sri Lanka. It was recognized that there were lapses, but it was important to engage constructively to improve the situation, and he hoped that this would be possible in the future.

He noted some inaccuracies, in that the Amnesty publication spoke of 20 years of impunity, but the document itself dealt almost entirely with the current Commission and noted several indictments on the basis of earlier commissions. It did say that convictions were few, but this was not unusual in the world at large, as was obvious from the Rodney King case.

In this context, while the points made by Mr Iqbal about the police cases in the Negombo area were valid, he indeed had noted the arrests that had been made, in referring to bail being refused etc. The problem was that the state had brought prosecutions, which had failed. It was inappropriate to criticize the decisions of the courts, but it should be noted that the state could endeavour to improve its prosecution skills. In addition, it would be useful if lawyers had a code of conduct so as not to appear in such cases since often, with able people not joining the state apparatus, an able lawyer could achieve acquittals despite the best efforts of a less skilful state prosecuting lawyer.

In fact the Peace Secretariat had a couple of years back convened a task force on human rights for the police, and senior police officials had pointed out the need for professional training as well. They had noted that police officer training had been reduced from years to months because of needs, unlike in the case of the army where training had been extended with emphasis on rights. Training for the police had then been requested, but turned down by the then High Commissioner for Human Rights who was insisting on an office or nothing, but the situation had now changed and training had begun. Meanwhile the new Attorney General had also begun training in prosecution capacity with the Commonwealth Foundation.

Another instance of bad faith related to the refusal to assist the National Human Rights Commission. Ms Foster’s comments about its regional offices were valid, but when help had been asked to improve these, it had been denied. The excuse from the UN was that donors were unwilling to fund the HRC, but in fact the Swiss had revealed that they had provided funds for the purpose to the UN which remained unused

Again, with regard to Witness Protection, the need for this had been accepted long before, and an act had been prepared, but it had also encompassed video evidence, and when this had begun there had been what seemed interference by one of the Assistants to the IIGEP, who had been overheard coaching a witness. That was the reason for the government view that safeguards were necessary.

The bad faith had in fact been a continuous problem with the IIGEP. Whilst the Eminent Persons themselves had generally justified the faith placed in them, some of their assistants had arrogated an authority they did not possess. They had thought it fit to release denigratory reports to coincide with meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, in the days when they thought they could make use of it for political purposes. One report had been issued without the comments of the Commission, which were a requirement, and the news that the IIGEP had decided not to continue from March was revealed by the Deputy Dutch ambassador in December, which certainly made clear the improprieties that had taken place.

Along with the bad faith of some of those who professed concern, it was also necessary to consider the fear that had dogged Sri Lanka for so long. One speaker had mentioned two sorts of fear, but he had forgotten the most pervasive, fear of terrorism, which had naturally led to reactions based on a sense of insecurity. Now that terrorism had been destroyed in its worst form on Sri Lankan soil, it was possible to move forward in a more positive spirit, and it was to be hoped that all those truly concerned with reform would work together without the bad faith of the past.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha Secretary General Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

15 June 2009

The University Teachers for Human Rights has issued yet another report on the situation in Sri Lanka which, as with its previous reports, merits serious attention. I have always admired their commitment and efforts  at objectivity and, even when I disagree with what they say, I have noted their sincerity. It should also be noted that they are amongst the few such organizations to admit it when they have been mistaken, as with their accounts of what happened to the ACF workers in Muttur. Their assertion that inquiries into that event and similar ones should be expedited cannot be challenged. Though I have pointed out that delays have arisen because of the prejudging that has taken place elsewhere, as well as the bad faith of some of the assistants to the International Eminent Persons, I too hope very much that the Commission of Inquiry will produce a report soon on the cases they have dealt with, and that action is taken as appropriate.

The current UTHR report is in the same serious vein, and its efforts at objectivity should be lauded. At the same time there are a couple of issues that need to be clarified. Though there are general accusations against the Sri Lankan forces, the details supplied testify to the humanitarian concerns of the forces, and indicate that many of the tragic deaths that occurred were inflicted by the LTTE. One principal complaint, that the government should have made clear its conditions for stopping hostilities, ignores the fact that the government did precisely that, in asking for surrender, and it was those who discouraged such surrender, or tried to introduce different modalities, who in effect encouraged the LTTE to go on fighting. In this regard clearly the British Foreign Minister, and British journalists associated with his position, have much to answer for.

There are other areas in which the report needs further explication, though I will confine myself here to references to my own pronouncements. One occurs in a long disquisition on the doctors who are being questioned about their pronouncements. After strictures on those who suggest that charges might be proferred, my own more sympathetic approach is described as patronizing.

The simple fact is that there are those who believe the doctors conveyed false information which was damaging to the government. This may or may not be true, and even if it were, I believe there were mitigating factors. Certainly the revelation by the Guardian that they had their own different sources of information suggest that some of the falsehoods at least came from people fraudulently described as officials, and not from the poor doctors. In any case we know of instances earlier, when the doctors were not under such pressure, when they actually corrected some falsehoods that were attributed to them. But the simple point is that, as for instance the British felt with P G Wodehouse, there is a case that must be investigated, and it is not correct for anyone to assume either absolute innocence or guilt in accordance with their own predilections.

The second issue relates to my comments about allegations concerning the usage of heavy weapons. UTHR takes issue with two of my statements, first when I challenged the HRW claim about how we had rescued civilians in April, second when I clarified matters in an interview to the Guardian in June. With regard to the first, the UTHR report itself seems to support my interpretation in its description of how the army broke through the bund on the northwest of the strip in which the civilians were being held by the LTTE. It then talks about shelling on the east, but that is not germane to the statement for which I am criticized, namely ‘The point the government had been making was that it was not using heavy weapons on civilians, and indeed its recent magnificent achievement in breaching one of the walls the LTTE had built up, and thus ensuring that over 100,000 civilians could get to safety, was without the use of heavy weapons as pointed out at the time.’

UTHR then objects to the clarification in my Guardian interview as to the type of weapons that were used. In fact the UTHR analysis of the manner in which the LTTE prevented civilians from escaping explains of itself the need to combat those pernicious efforts as swiftly as possible, without however using weapons that would inflict indiscriminate harm on civilians. I should note that UTHR is right to fault our estimate of the number of civilians in the zone, though that low estimate did contribute to the later international assertion of a credible average, as opposed to the figures of 400,000 that were being bandied about at one stage. They are certainly wrong to compare that with my estimate of all casualties, not just civilians, which has been also found fault with as being too high.

My methodology, explained in detail in my release on ‘Big lies from the big boys’, and discussed earlier too, does not seem so very different from that of UTHR itself, and I would therefore welcome a clear statement from them of their estimates of all casualties, dead and injured. I certainly appreciate their clearsighted assertion that many of those who died were those whom the LTTE had dragooned into combat, who therefore have to be considered as combatants in any formal accounting, but who are clearly tragic victims of LTTE compulsions, and also of the pusillanimity of those international actors who kept quiet for so long about such abuses.

In that regard UTHR has never minced its words, for which it deserves all respect, and I hope it will play an active role in the reconciliation and reconstruction with which we all must proceed. However I must note a slight tendency to what might be termed ‘othering’, which it should get over so as to contribute positively to developments in Sri Lanka.

I refer to its explanation of what it sees as an improvement in the role of the armed forces in upholding human rights. Having granted that ‘It is hard to identify any other Army that would have endured the provocations of the LTTE, which was angling for genocide, and caused proportionately little harm’, it goes on to declare that ‘The result is remarkable because the present Army Commander’s  operations in Akkaraipattu and Kalmunai in 1990 led to grave massacres. The same year the present Army Commander and Defence Secretary took part in the operation in the islands off Jaffna, which too resulted in significant massacres of civilians. Foreign pressure and scrutiny apparently forced the Government to be extremely careful this time.’

UTHR here ignores completely the simple fact that successive Sri Lankan governments have themselves deduced that, given the pressures of combating terrorism, it is important to guard against possible violations of human rights. Therefore they have developed training programmes in this field that have continuously been refined and strengthened. This has been an ongoing process, dating back several years, and has nothing to do with what UTHR thinks are current pressures. It would be useful, and in line with the scientific methods UTHR endeavours to employ, if this fact were noted, and if UTHR allowed at least some credit to the Sri Lankan government and its forces for what is rightly recognized as a remarkable achievement, far in advance of what we have seen in other countries that assume the pressures they might selectively apply are more important than our concern for our people.

It is sad therefore that UTHR seems to have adopted the agenda of some of these countries that, with less attention to evidence than UTHR, are trying to put Sri Lanka in the dock for its achievement in getting rid of terrorism from Sri Lanka. Such efforts may well strengthen terrorist forces elsewhere, and since UTHR well understands the horror of LTTE terrorism, I hope that it will not lend its voice to stratagems that the rump of the LTTE now promote so assiduously.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

Response of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights

12 June 2009

Response of Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, in responding to an intervention by United Nations Watch in the General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review Process.

Mr President, the intervention of United Nations Watch raises some issues which this Council would do well to address. In a rather sad effort at sarcasm, it was endeavouring to denigrate the UPR process, and suggested that countries it loathes are incapable of making judgments except on the grounds of self interest.

Mr President, the structure of the United Nations recognizes that countries do work in terms of self interest, but we endeavour to seek ways of promoting our common ideals. We all understand where different countries are coming from, and if we see some of our friends not being as principled as we would like, and employing what we see as double standards, there may be good reasons for this that have to do with political compulsions.

Unfortunately, Mr President, we do not know where some NGOs come from, where they get their funds, and what their particular predilections are. It is therefore sad that they should be allowed to denigrate countries and the work of this Council, without the accountability and transparency that can alone justify such interventions. I would urge Mr President that you look into this matter carefully, and take suitable action to ensure that the work of this Council can move forward with dignity.

Thank you.